{"id":"F2025L01098","name":"Kirribilli House and Garden Heritage Management Plan 2025–2030","slug":"kirribilli-house-and-garden-heritage-management-plan-2025-2030","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":106830,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2025L01098-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1.0","sectionType":"part","heading":"Introduction","content":"# 1.0 Introduction\n\n## 1.1 Background\n\nKirribilli House is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, as represented by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) was commissioned to prepare an updated Heritage Management Plan (HMP) for Kirribilli House at Kirribilli, New South Wales (NSW) (referred to in this report as ‘the site’, ‘Kirribilli House’, ‘Kirribilli House and Garden’, and the ‘study area’).\n\nThe transfer of administration from the Department of Finance to the Department of PM&C took place in 2017. Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), Commonwealth agencies are required to identify, manage, and conserve heritage items. The EPBC Act requires that HMPs are reviewed and updated every five years. This HMP replaces and updates a HMP prepared in 2016, Kirribilli House Operational Heritage Management Plan, Volumes 1 and 2 (GML Heritage Pty Ltd, 2016), hereafter referred as, HMP, 2016.\n\n## 1.2 Site location\n\nKirribilli House is located on the Kirribilli peninsula, on the northern foreshore of Sydney Harbour, directly opposite Circular Quay and the Opera House. It is located adjacent to Admiralty House, the Sydney residence of the Governor-General of Australia. The site identification information is presented in Table 1‑1 and the location is shown on Figure 1‑1 and Figure 1‑2.\n\nTable 1‑1: Site Identification Details\n\n| Item | Details |\n| ----------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n| Site Owner | Commonwealth of Australia |\n| Site Address | 111 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, NSW |\n| Legal Description | Lot 109, DP 1151872 |\n| Zoning | SP2 (infrastructure) Commonwealth Government |\n| Site Area (m²) | 4,878 m² (approximate) |\n\n## 1.3 Heritage status\n\nA search has been undertaken of the relevant heritage registers (Table 1-2). Kirribilli House and Garden has two separate listings in the Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL). It is also listed in Schedule 5 of the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 as an item of local significance within a heritage conservation area.\n\n \n\nTable 1‑2: Heritage status - Summary of search results of relevant heritage registers\n\n| Register | Listing | Listing Reference |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) | Place ID 105451, Kirribilli House, 111 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, NSWPlace ID 105589, Kirribilli House, Garden and Grounds, 111 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, NSW | Volume 2 - Appendix A |\n| National Heritage Listing (NHL) | Nil | n/a |\n| NSW Heritage Register | Nil | n/a |\n| North Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013, Schedule 5 (Environmental heritage) Part 1 – Heritage Items | Kirribilli House, Lot 109, DP 1151872, 111 Kirribilli Avenue, KirribilliKirribilli Conservation Area | https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=2180104 |\n| National Trust of Australia (NSW) Register | Kirribilli House, Kirribilli Avenue (adjacent to Admiralty House), S8674 | n/a |","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"1.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Background","content":"## 1.1 Background\n\nKirribilli House is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, as represented by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) was commissioned to prepare an updated Heritage Management Plan (HMP) for Kirribilli House at Kirribilli, New South Wales (NSW) (referred to in this report as ‘the site’, ‘Kirribilli House’, ‘Kirribilli House and Garden’, and the ‘study area’).\n\nThe transfer of administration from the Department of Finance to the Department of PM&C took place in 2017. Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), Commonwealth agencies are required to identify, manage, and conserve heritage items. The EPBC Act requires that HMPs are reviewed and updated every five years. This HMP replaces and updates a HMP prepared in 2016, Kirribilli House Operational Heritage Management Plan, Volumes 1 and 2 (GML Heritage Pty Ltd, 2016), hereafter referred as, HMP, 2016.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"1.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Site location","content":"## 1.2 Site location\n\nKirribilli House is located on the Kirribilli peninsula, on the northern foreshore of Sydney Harbour, directly opposite Circular Quay and the Opera House. It is located adjacent to Admiralty House, the Sydney residence of the Governor-General of Australia. The site identification information is presented in Table 1‑1 and the location is shown on Figure 1‑1 and Figure 1‑2.\n\nTable 1‑1: Site Identification Details\n\n| Item | Details |\n| ----------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n| Site Owner | Commonwealth of Australia |\n| Site Address | 111 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, NSW |\n| Legal Description | Lot 109, DP 1151872 |\n| Zoning | SP2 (infrastructure) Commonwealth Government |\n| Site Area (m²) | 4,878 m² (approximate) |","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"1.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Heritage status","content":"## 1.3 Heritage status\n\nA search has been undertaken of the relevant heritage registers (Table 1-2). Kirribilli House and Garden has two separate listings in the Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL). It is also listed in Schedule 5 of the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 as an item of local significance within a heritage conservation area.\n\n \n\nTable 1‑2: Heritage status - Summary of search results of relevant heritage registers\n\n| Register | Listing | Listing Reference |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) | Place ID 105451, Kirribilli House, 111 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, NSWPlace ID 105589, Kirribilli House, Garden and Grounds, 111 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, NSW | Volume 2 - Appendix A |\n| National Heritage Listing (NHL) | Nil | n/a |\n| NSW Heritage Register | Nil | n/a |\n| North Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013, Schedule 5 (Environmental heritage) Part 1 – Heritage Items | Kirribilli House, Lot 109, DP 1151872, 111 Kirribilli Avenue, KirribilliKirribilli Conservation Area | https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=2180104 |\n| National Trust of Australia (NSW) Register | Kirribilli House, Kirribilli Avenue (adjacent to Admiralty House), S8674 | n/a |","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"1.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Previous key heritage reports","content":"## 1.4 Previous key heritage reports\n\nThe heritage values of Kirribilli House have been outlined in the following previous reports:\n\n Kirribilli House Operational Heritage Management Plan, Volume 1 and 2, GML (GML Heritage Pty Ltd, 2016)\n Kirribilli House Landscape management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020)\n Draft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan 2010, Design 5 (Design 5, 2010)\n Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986)\n Archaeological Assessment, Kirribilli Foreshore Development, 2000, GML (Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd (GML), 2000)\n Kirribilli House Grounds Conservation and Management Plan 1986, Landscape Architects Department of Housing and Construction (Landscape Architects Department of Housing and Construction, 1986).","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"1.5","sectionType":"part","heading":"Objectives","content":"## 1.5 Objectives\n\nThe objective of this HMP is to assist PM&C in the management of the assessed heritage values of Kirribilli House. The preparation and implementation of an HMP is required under Section 341S of the EPBC Act for places inscribed on the CHL.\n\nThe key issues are:\n\n Identification and presentation of the Commonwealth, heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden including historic, natural and Indigenous values\n Provide management policies and guidelines to retain the identified heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden\n Ensuring that no activities diminish the significance of the setting, form and character of Kirribilli House and Garden\n Ensuring that no activities diminish the main use of Kirribilli House as the Official Sydney residence of the Prime Minister\n Continue to manage and maintain Kirribilli House to a very high standard considering its functional use as the Official Sydney residence of the Prime Minister.\n\nThis HMP has been developed to comply with the regulations provided in Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations 2000, which specifies the content of a management plan for CHL places. Table 1‑3 lists the requirements of Schedules 7A and 7B and references the sections of the HMP that address the requirements.\n\nTable 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist\n\n```html\n

Regulation reference

Requirement

Report Section

Schedule 7A (a)

Establish objectives for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission of the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Section 1.5 and 1.7

Schedule 7A (b)

Provide a management framework that includes reference to any statutory requirements and agency mechanisms for the protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Section 2.0 and 7.0

Schedule 7A (c)

Provide a comprehensive description of the place, including information about its location, physical features, condition, historical context, and current uses

Sections 3.0, 4.0 and Appendix H

Schedule 7A (d)

Provide a description of the Commonwealth Heritage values and any other heritage values of the place

Sections 5.0

Schedule 7A (e)

Describe the condition of the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Sections 5.4 and Appendix H

Schedule 7A (f)

Describe the method used to assess the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Sections 1.7.2 and 1.7.3

Schedule 7A (g)

Describe the current management requirements and goals, including proposals for change and any potential pressures on the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Sections 6.0, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5.6

Schedule 7A (h)

Have policies to manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place, and include in those policies, guidance in relation to the following:

(i) the management and conservation processes to be used

Section 7.5

(ii) the access and security arrangements, including access to the area for Indigenous people to maintain cultural traditions

Sections 7.6, 7.7.14, 7.7.16 and 7.7.16

(iii) the stakeholder and community consultation and liaison arrangements

Sections 1.6 and 7.5.12

(iv) the policies and protocols to ensure the Indigenous people participate in the management process

Sections 1.8 and 7.7.19

(v) the protocols for the management of sensitive information

Sections 1.6, 2.1 and 7.6

(vi) planning and managing of works, development, adaptive reuse, and property divestment proposals

Sections 5.5, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7

(vii) how unforeseen discoveries or disturbing heritage values are to be managed

Section 7.7.14

(viii) how, and under what circumstances, heritage advice is to be obtained

Section 7.5

(ix) how the condition of Commonwealth Heritage values is to be monitored and reported

Sections 7.5.1, 7.5.3, 7.5.6 and 7.5.12

(x) how the records of intervention and maintenance of a heritage place’s register are kept

Sections 7.5.1, 7.5.6 and 7.7.9

(xi) research, training, and resources needed to improve management

Sections 7.5.3 and 7.5.4

(xii) how heritage values are to be interpreted and promoted

Sections 7.5.4, 7.7.16, 7.7.18 and 7.7.19

Schedule 7A (i)

Include an implementation plan

Sections 7.5.1

Schedule 7A (j)

Show how the implementation of policies will be monitored

Sections 7.5.6

Schedule 7A (k)

Show how the management plan will be reviewed

Sections 7.5.1

Schedule 7B (1)

The objective in managing Commonwealth Heritage places is to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit, to all generations, their Commonwealth Heritage values

Sections 5.0 and 7.0

Schedule 7B (2)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should use the best available knowledge, skills, and standards for those places, and include ongoing technical and community input to decisions and actions that may have a significant impact on their Commonwealth Heritage values

Sections 7.0

Schedule 7B (3)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should respect all heritage values of the place and seek to integrate, where appropriate, any Commonwealth, State, Territory, and local government responsibilities for those places

Sections 2.0 and 7.0

Schedule 7B (4)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should ensure that their use and presentation is consistent with the conservation of their Commonwealth Heritage values

Sections 7.5.2 and 7.9

Schedule 7B (5)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should make timely and appropriate provision for community involvement, especially by people who:

(a) have a particular interest in, or associations with, the place; and

(b) may be affected by the management of the place

Sections 7.5.12, 7.7.16 and 7.7.19

Schedule 7B (6)

Indigenous people are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage and that the active participation of Indigenous people in identification, assessment and management is integral to the effective protection of Indigenous heritage values

Sections 1.8, 4.1,7.7.14, 7.7.19 and Appendix J

Schedule 7B (7)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should provide for regular monitoring, review, and reporting on the conservation of Commonwealth Heritage values

Sections 7.5.1, 7.5.3 and 7.5.6

\n```","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"1.6","sectionType":"part","heading":"Stakeholder roles and responsibilities","content":"## 1.6 Stakeholder roles and responsibilities\n\nKirribilli House is owned by PM&C on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. The roles and responsibilities of Kirribilli House are outlined in Table 1‑4.\n\nTable 1‑4: Stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities for Kirribilli House\n\n| Agency | Role and responsibilities |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet (PM&C)High Office Support Team (HOST) Section | Ownership and property management of Kirribilli House including heritage management, Capital Works Program, and other ad-hoc projects.PM&C assumed ownership and management of Kirribilli House from the Department of Finance (following the Administrative Arrangements Order of 30 November 2017). |\n| Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) | Day to day facilities management and leasing utilising Whole-of-Government service provision arrangements (commenced on 1 March 2023). |\n| Transport for NSW (Transport) | Transport administers all land below the mean high-water mark in Sydney Harbour. The Commonwealth pays a mooring fee to Transport for the former boat harbour area. |\n| The Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (OOSGG) | The Laundry and Gardener’s amenities building, located on the southwestern boundary between Kirribilli House and Admiralty House, is on the property of Admiralty House, which is administered by OOSGG. This building is used exclusively by Kirribilli House as a laundry and gardener’s office. There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) arrangement with OOSGG for use of the building which also includes the maintenance of the garden at Kirribilli House. |\n| Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) | DCCEEW are responsible for legislative compliance of the EPBC Act, provide consultation regarding EPBC Act referrals, prepare submissions based on referrals under the Act for the decision by the Minister and approve EPBC Act referrals. |","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"1.6.1 Management of Kirribilli House","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.6.1 Management of Kirribilli House","content":"### 1.6.1 Management of Kirribilli House\n\nIn 2017, PM&C assumed ownership and property management of Kirribilli House from the Department of Finance (following the Administrative Arrangements Order of 30 November 2017).\n\nWithin PM&C overarching responsibility for Kirribilli House sits with the High Office Support Team (HOST). The Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General provides grounds and garden maintenance through a Memorandum of Understanding arrangement; while day-to-day facilities maintenance is provided by Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) utilising existing Whole-of-Government service provision arrangements (these arrangements commenced on 1 March 2023).\n\nThe HOST Section will continue to be responsible for capital works planning and delivery, as well as other ad hoc projects.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"1.7","sectionType":"part","heading":"Methodology","content":"## 1.4 Previous key heritage reports\n\nThe heritage values of Kirribilli House have been outlined in the following previous reports:\n\n Kirribilli House Operational Heritage Management Plan, Volume 1 and 2, GML (GML Heritage Pty Ltd, 2016)\n Kirribilli House Landscape management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020)\n Draft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan 2010, Design 5 (Design 5, 2010)\n Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986)\n Archaeological Assessment, Kirribilli Foreshore Development, 2000, GML (Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd (GML), 2000)\n Kirribilli House Grounds Conservation and Management Plan 1986, Landscape Architects Department of Housing and Construction (Landscape Architects Department of Housing and Construction, 1986).\n\n## 1.5 Objectives\n\nThe objective of this HMP is to assist PM&C in the management of the assessed heritage values of Kirribilli House. The preparation and implementation of an HMP is required under Section 341S of the EPBC Act for places inscribed on the CHL.\n\nThe key issues are:\n\n Identification and presentation of the Commonwealth, heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden including historic, natural and Indigenous values\n Provide management policies and guidelines to retain the identified heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden\n Ensuring that no activities diminish the significance of the setting, form and character of Kirribilli House and Garden\n Ensuring that no activities diminish the main use of Kirribilli House as the Official Sydney residence of the Prime Minister\n Continue to manage and maintain Kirribilli House to a very high standard considering its functional use as the Official Sydney residence of the Prime Minister.\n\nThis HMP has been developed to comply with the regulations provided in Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations 2000, which specifies the content of a management plan for CHL places. Table 1‑3 lists the requirements of Schedules 7A and 7B and references the sections of the HMP that address the requirements.\n\nTable 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist\n\n```html\n

Regulation reference

Requirement

Report Section

Schedule 7A (a)

Establish objectives for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission of the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Section 1.5 and 1.7

Schedule 7A (b)

Provide a management framework that includes reference to any statutory requirements and agency mechanisms for the protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Section 2.0 and 7.0

Schedule 7A (c)

Provide a comprehensive description of the place, including information about its location, physical features, condition, historical context, and current uses

Sections 3.0, 4.0 and Appendix H

Schedule 7A (d)

Provide a description of the Commonwealth Heritage values and any other heritage values of the place

Sections 5.0

Schedule 7A (e)

Describe the condition of the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Sections 5.4 and Appendix H

Schedule 7A (f)

Describe the method used to assess the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Sections 1.7.2 and 1.7.3

Schedule 7A (g)

Describe the current management requirements and goals, including proposals for change and any potential pressures on the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place

Sections 6.0, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5.6

Schedule 7A (h)

Have policies to manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place, and include in those policies, guidance in relation to the following:

(i) the management and conservation processes to be used

Section 7.5

(ii) the access and security arrangements, including access to the area for Indigenous people to maintain cultural traditions

Sections 7.6, 7.7.14, 7.7.16 and 7.7.16

(iii) the stakeholder and community consultation and liaison arrangements

Sections 1.6 and 7.5.12

(iv) the policies and protocols to ensure the Indigenous people participate in the management process

Sections 1.8 and 7.7.19

(v) the protocols for the management of sensitive information

Sections 1.6, 2.1 and 7.6

(vi) planning and managing of works, development, adaptive reuse, and property divestment proposals

Sections 5.5, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7

(vii) how unforeseen discoveries or disturbing heritage values are to be managed

Section 7.7.14

(viii) how, and under what circumstances, heritage advice is to be obtained

Section 7.5

(ix) how the condition of Commonwealth Heritage values is to be monitored and reported

Sections 7.5.1, 7.5.3, 7.5.6 and 7.5.12

(x) how the records of intervention and maintenance of a heritage place’s register are kept

Sections 7.5.1, 7.5.6 and 7.7.9

(xi) research, training, and resources needed to improve management

Sections 7.5.3 and 7.5.4

(xii) how heritage values are to be interpreted and promoted

Sections 7.5.4, 7.7.16, 7.7.18 and 7.7.19

Schedule 7A (i)

Include an implementation plan

Sections 7.5.1

Schedule 7A (j)

Show how the implementation of policies will be monitored

Sections 7.5.6

Schedule 7A (k)

Show how the management plan will be reviewed

Sections 7.5.1

Schedule 7B (1)

The objective in managing Commonwealth Heritage places is to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit, to all generations, their Commonwealth Heritage values

Sections 5.0 and 7.0

Schedule 7B (2)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should use the best available knowledge, skills, and standards for those places, and include ongoing technical and community input to decisions and actions that may have a significant impact on their Commonwealth Heritage values

Sections 7.0

Schedule 7B (3)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should respect all heritage values of the place and seek to integrate, where appropriate, any Commonwealth, State, Territory, and local government responsibilities for those places

Sections 2.0 and 7.0

Schedule 7B (4)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should ensure that their use and presentation is consistent with the conservation of their Commonwealth Heritage values

Sections 7.5.2 and 7.9

Schedule 7B (5)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should make timely and appropriate provision for community involvement, especially by people who:

(a) have a particular interest in, or associations with, the place; and

(b) may be affected by the management of the place

Sections 7.5.12, 7.7.16 and 7.7.19

Schedule 7B (6)

Indigenous people are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage and that the active participation of Indigenous people in identification, assessment and management is integral to the effective protection of Indigenous heritage values

Sections 1.8, 4.1,7.7.14, 7.7.19 and Appendix J

Schedule 7B (7)

The management of Commonwealth Heritage places should provide for regular monitoring, review, and reporting on the conservation of Commonwealth Heritage values

Sections 7.5.1, 7.5.3 and 7.5.6

\n```\n\n## 1.6 Stakeholder roles and responsibilities\n\nKirribilli House is owned by PM&C on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. The roles and responsibilities of Kirribilli House are outlined in Table 1‑4.\n\nTable 1‑4: Stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities for Kirribilli House\n\n| Agency | Role and responsibilities |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet (PM&C)High Office Support Team (HOST) Section | Ownership and property management of Kirribilli House including heritage management, Capital Works Program, and other ad-hoc projects.PM&C assumed ownership and management of Kirribilli House from the Department of Finance (following the Administrative Arrangements Order of 30 November 2017). |\n| Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) | Day to day facilities management and leasing utilising Whole-of-Government service provision arrangements (commenced on 1 March 2023). |\n| Transport for NSW (Transport) | Transport administers all land below the mean high-water mark in Sydney Harbour. The Commonwealth pays a mooring fee to Transport for the former boat harbour area. |\n| The Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (OOSGG) | The Laundry and Gardener’s amenities building, located on the southwestern boundary between Kirribilli House and Admiralty House, is on the property of Admiralty House, which is administered by OOSGG. This building is used exclusively by Kirribilli House as a laundry and gardener’s office. There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) arrangement with OOSGG for use of the building which also includes the maintenance of the garden at Kirribilli House. |\n| Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) | DCCEEW are responsible for legislative compliance of the EPBC Act, provide consultation regarding EPBC Act referrals, prepare submissions based on referrals under the Act for the decision by the Minister and approve EPBC Act referrals. |\n\n### 1.6.1 Management of Kirribilli House\n\nIn 2017, PM&C assumed ownership and property management of Kirribilli House from the Department of Finance (following the Administrative Arrangements Order of 30 November 2017).\n\nWithin PM&C overarching responsibility for Kirribilli House sits with the High Office Support Team (HOST). The Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General provides grounds and garden maintenance through a Memorandum of Understanding arrangement; while day-to-day facilities maintenance is provided by Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) utilising existing Whole-of-Government service provision arrangements (these arrangements commenced on 1 March 2023).\n\nThe HOST Section will continue to be responsible for capital works planning and delivery, as well as other ad hoc projects.\n\n## 1.7 Methodology\n\n### 1.7.1 General\n\nTo achieve the objectives of an HMP, the following scope of work was undertaken:\n\n Complete a search of relevant heritage registers\n Review of historical documentation and additional research to fill in knowledge gaps to develop an appreciation of the historical context of the site\n Undertake a site inspection including consultation with Indigenous representatives to understand the physical context of the site\n Assess the heritage values of the site using the relevant Commonwealth criteria\n Undertake a risk assessment to heritage values of the site\n Review and update management policies and develop maintenance activities.\n\nThe HMP adheres to the following legislative framework and best practice guidelines:\n\n EPBC Act and Regulations\n The Australia International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (2013) (the Burra Charter)\n Australian Heritage Council (2010), Identifying Commonwealth Heritage values and Establishing a Heritage Register: A Guide for Commonwealth Agencies\n Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (now Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water \\[DCCEEW\\]) Guide: Australia’s Commonwealth Heritage – Working Together – Managing Commonwealth Heritage Places\n Australia Heritage Council, Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n Engage Early: Guidance for Proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the EPBC Act\n Commonwealth of Australia (2002), Australian Natural Heritage Charter.\n\nConsultation with PM&C has determined that the Finance HMP report format is an acceptable template for use.\n\n### 1.7.2 Assessment of significance Thresholds\n\nAustralia uses a four-tiered system for identifying significance. A site may be of significance at a World, National, State/Territory or local level.\n\nItems that are deemed significant at a national level must demonstrate they are of significance to the people of Australia as a whole and are listed on the National Heritage List (NHL), an example of which is the Sydney Opera House. To be of State/Territory significance, an item must be of value to the people of that State/Territory, in this case NSW, and listed on the NSW State Heritage Register (SHR). An example would be the General Post Office in Martin Place. Items that may not be of significance at a National or State level but are important to the people of a town or region, may be found in statutory listings on the CHL and the relevant LEP.\n\nThe DCCEEW website provides some guidance in assessing the level of significance. To be considered for listing on the CHL, an item must be of at least local significance and have ‘significant’ heritage value against one or more criteria. To meet the threshold for the NHL the place must have ‘outstanding’ heritage value to the nation against one or more criteria. Appendix Q contains further information on the NHL and SHR listings.\n\n### 1.7.3 Significance Assessment under the EPBC Act\n\nThe assessment of potential Indigenous, natural and historic heritage significance has been undertaken using the EPBC Act heritage significance criteria, as outlined in Table 1‑5\\. The assessment was undertaken using the guideline Identifying Commonwealth Heritage Values and Establishing a Heritage Register: A guideline for Commonwealth agencies (Australian Heritage Council, 2010).\n\nTable 1‑5 EBPC Act heritage significance criteria\n\n| Criterion AThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history. |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion BThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare,or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. |\n| Criterion CThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural history. |\n| Criterion DThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; orA class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. |\n| Criterion EThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group. |\n| Criterion FThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period. |\n\n \n\n| Criterion GThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons. |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion HThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. |\n| Criterion IThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance as part of Indigenous tradition. |\n\nAECOM have also adopted the Finance significance ranking guide for ease of assessment and consistency with the previous HMP (GML Heritage Pty Ltd, 2016). The ranking system has been developed in reference to the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), Burra Charter, World Heritage Guidelines, Ask First Guideline for Indigenous places, and the Natural Heritage Charter.\n\nDefinitions for each category of the ranking system are provided in Table 1‑6 and Table 1‑7\\. This HMP adopts this ranking system for evaluating heritage significance.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"1.7.1 General","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.7.1 General","content":"### 1.7.1 General\n\nTo achieve the objectives of an HMP, the following scope of work was undertaken:\n\n Complete a search of relevant heritage registers\n Review of historical documentation and additional research to fill in knowledge gaps to develop an appreciation of the historical context of the site\n Undertake a site inspection including consultation with Indigenous representatives to understand the physical context of the site\n Assess the heritage values of the site using the relevant Commonwealth criteria\n Undertake a risk assessment to heritage values of the site\n Review and update management policies and develop maintenance activities.\n\nThe HMP adheres to the following legislative framework and best practice guidelines:\n\n EPBC Act and Regulations\n The Australia International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (2013) (the Burra Charter)\n Australian Heritage Council (2010), Identifying Commonwealth Heritage values and Establishing a Heritage Register: A Guide for Commonwealth Agencies\n Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (now Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water \\[DCCEEW\\]) Guide: Australia’s Commonwealth Heritage – Working Together – Managing Commonwealth Heritage Places\n Australia Heritage Council, Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n Engage Early: Guidance for Proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the EPBC Act\n Commonwealth of Australia (2002), Australian Natural Heritage Charter.\n\nConsultation with PM&C has determined that the Finance HMP report format is an acceptable template for use.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"1.7.2 Assessment of significance Thresho","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.7.2 Assessment of significance Thresholds","content":"### 1.7.2 Assessment of significance Thresholds\n\nAustralia uses a four-tiered system for identifying significance. A site may be of significance at a World, National, State/Territory or local level.\n\nItems that are deemed significant at a national level must demonstrate they are of significance to the people of Australia as a whole and are listed on the National Heritage List (NHL), an example of which is the Sydney Opera House. To be of State/Territory significance, an item must be of value to the people of that State/Territory, in this case NSW, and listed on the NSW State Heritage Register (SHR). An example would be the General Post Office in Martin Place. Items that may not be of significance at a National or State level but are important to the people of a town or region, may be found in statutory listings on the CHL and the relevant LEP.\n\nThe DCCEEW website provides some guidance in assessing the level of significance. To be considered for listing on the CHL, an item must be of at least local significance and have ‘significant’ heritage value against one or more criteria. To meet the threshold for the NHL the place must have ‘outstanding’ heritage value to the nation against one or more criteria. Appendix Q contains further information on the NHL and SHR listings.","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"1.7.3 Significance Assessment under the ","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.7.3 Significance Assessment under the EPBC Act","content":"### 1.7.3 Significance Assessment under the EPBC Act\n\nThe assessment of potential Indigenous, natural and historic heritage significance has been undertaken using the EPBC Act heritage significance criteria, as outlined in Table 1‑5\\. The assessment was undertaken using the guideline Identifying Commonwealth Heritage Values and Establishing a Heritage Register: A guideline for Commonwealth agencies (Australian Heritage Council, 2010).\n\nTable 1‑5 EBPC Act heritage significance criteria\n\n| Criterion AThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history. |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion BThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare,or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. |\n| Criterion CThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural history. |\n| Criterion DThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; orA class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. |\n| Criterion EThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group. |\n| Criterion FThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period. |\n\n \n\n| Criterion GThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons. |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion HThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. |\n| Criterion IThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance as part of Indigenous tradition. |\n\nAECOM have also adopted the Finance significance ranking guide for ease of assessment and consistency with the previous HMP (GML Heritage Pty Ltd, 2016). The ranking system has been developed in reference to the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), Burra Charter, World Heritage Guidelines, Ask First Guideline for Indigenous places, and the Natural Heritage Charter.\n\nDefinitions for each category of the ranking system are provided in Table 1‑6 and Table 1‑7\\. This HMP adopts this ranking system for evaluating heritage significance.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis","content":"### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"1.8","sectionType":"part","heading":"Consultation","content":"## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"1.8.1 Public exhibition","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.8.1 Public exhibition","content":"### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"1.9","sectionType":"part","heading":"Assumptions and Limitations","content":"## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"1.10","sectionType":"part","heading":"Authorship","content":"## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"1.11","sectionType":"part","heading":"Acknowledgements","content":"## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"2.0","sectionType":"part","heading":"Statutory Controls","content":"# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"2.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Commonwealth Controls","content":"Table 1‑7: Summary of Significance Rankings for Natural Heritage Values\n\n| Significance Ranking | Justification- Natural |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates individual or collective characteristics that are rare or unique in AustraliaSpecies, area, or ecosystem is in high level of health, condition and integrityLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements would substantially undermine the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| High | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates a rare example of individual or collective characteristics or features physically linking or defining spaceSpecies, area, or ecosystem is largely intact and in good state of health;Loss, damage, or removal of components or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and of the site overall. |\n| Moderate | Area or ecosystem demonstrates valuable (although modified) qualitiesIntact enough to be interpreted as a discrete space or as part of the site overall with ability to be regeneratedLoss, damage, or removal of component elements or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and potentially of the site overall if inappropriately managed. |\n| Low | Species, area, or ecosystem demonstrates some (but possibly largely altered) defining qualities Area or ecosystem not in a good state of health and regeneration in doubtLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements may not detract from the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| None (Does not meet CHL criteria) | Species, area, or ecosystem does not reflect or demonstrate any cultural heritage values. |\n| Intrusive | Loss, alteration, or removal of component elements actually contribute to the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n\n### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.\n\n## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |\n\n### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.\n\n## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.\n\n## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.\n\n## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.\n\n# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.\n\n## 2.1 Commonwealth Controls\n\n### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).\n\n### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.\n\n## 2.2 State and local legislation\n\n### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.\n\n### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)\n\n### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)\n\n### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.\n\n## 2.3 Other relevant Legislation and Codes\n\n### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.\n\n### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.\n\n## 2.4 Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines\n\n### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.\n\n### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.\n\n### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.\n\n### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.\n\n \n\n### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.\n\n \n\n# 3.0 Site background\n\n## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.\n\n## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n## 3.3 Kirribilli House\n\n### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.\n\n \n\n## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).\n\n### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)\n\n### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.\n\n## 3.5 Other elements\n\n### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |\n\n \n\n# 4.0 Historical background\n\n## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.\n\n## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).\n\n## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.\n\n### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.\n\n#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.\n\n#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.\n\n#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.\n\n### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.\n\n#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.\n\n#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.\n\n### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |\n\n### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |\n\n### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodive","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)","content":"### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islan","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984","content":"### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.","sortOrder":21},{"sectionNumber":"2.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"State and local legislation","content":"Table 1‑7: Summary of Significance Rankings for Natural Heritage Values\n\n| Significance Ranking | Justification- Natural |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates individual or collective characteristics that are rare or unique in AustraliaSpecies, area, or ecosystem is in high level of health, condition and integrityLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements would substantially undermine the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| High | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates a rare example of individual or collective characteristics or features physically linking or defining spaceSpecies, area, or ecosystem is largely intact and in good state of health;Loss, damage, or removal of components or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and of the site overall. |\n| Moderate | Area or ecosystem demonstrates valuable (although modified) qualitiesIntact enough to be interpreted as a discrete space or as part of the site overall with ability to be regeneratedLoss, damage, or removal of component elements or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and potentially of the site overall if inappropriately managed. |\n| Low | Species, area, or ecosystem demonstrates some (but possibly largely altered) defining qualities Area or ecosystem not in a good state of health and regeneration in doubtLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements may not detract from the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| None (Does not meet CHL criteria) | Species, area, or ecosystem does not reflect or demonstrate any cultural heritage values. |\n| Intrusive | Loss, alteration, or removal of component elements actually contribute to the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n\n### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.\n\n## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |\n\n### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.\n\n## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.\n\n## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.\n\n## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.\n\n# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.\n\n## 2.1 Commonwealth Controls\n\n### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).\n\n### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.\n\n## 2.2 State and local legislation\n\n### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.\n\n### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)\n\n### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)\n\n### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.\n\n## 2.3 Other relevant Legislation and Codes\n\n### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.\n\n### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.\n\n## 2.4 Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines\n\n### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.\n\n### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.\n\n### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.\n\n### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.\n\n \n\n### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.\n\n \n\n# 3.0 Site background\n\n## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.\n\n## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n## 3.3 Kirribilli House\n\n### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.\n\n \n\n## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).\n\n### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)\n\n### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.\n\n## 3.5 Other elements\n\n### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |\n\n \n\n# 4.0 Historical background\n\n## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.\n\n## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).\n\n## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.\n\n### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.\n\n#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.\n\n#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.\n\n#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.\n\n### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.\n\n#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.\n\n#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.\n\n### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |\n\n### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |\n\n### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)","content":"### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.","sortOrder":23},{"sectionNumber":"2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessm","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)","content":"### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)","sortOrder":24},{"sectionNumber":"2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental P","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)","content":"### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)","sortOrder":25},{"sectionNumber":"2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control P","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013","content":"### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.","sortOrder":26},{"sectionNumber":"2.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Other relevant Legislation and Codes","content":"Table 1‑7: Summary of Significance Rankings for Natural Heritage Values\n\n| Significance Ranking | Justification- Natural |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates individual or collective characteristics that are rare or unique in AustraliaSpecies, area, or ecosystem is in high level of health, condition and integrityLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements would substantially undermine the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| High | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates a rare example of individual or collective characteristics or features physically linking or defining spaceSpecies, area, or ecosystem is largely intact and in good state of health;Loss, damage, or removal of components or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and of the site overall. |\n| Moderate | Area or ecosystem demonstrates valuable (although modified) qualitiesIntact enough to be interpreted as a discrete space or as part of the site overall with ability to be regeneratedLoss, damage, or removal of component elements or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and potentially of the site overall if inappropriately managed. |\n| Low | Species, area, or ecosystem demonstrates some (but possibly largely altered) defining qualities Area or ecosystem not in a good state of health and regeneration in doubtLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements may not detract from the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| None (Does not meet CHL criteria) | Species, area, or ecosystem does not reflect or demonstrate any cultural heritage values. |\n| Intrusive | Loss, alteration, or removal of component elements actually contribute to the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n\n### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.\n\n## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |\n\n### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.\n\n## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.\n\n## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.\n\n## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.\n\n# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.\n\n## 2.1 Commonwealth Controls\n\n### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).\n\n### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.\n\n## 2.2 State and local legislation\n\n### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.\n\n### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)\n\n### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)\n\n### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.\n\n## 2.3 Other relevant Legislation and Codes\n\n### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.\n\n### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.\n\n## 2.4 Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines\n\n### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.\n\n### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.\n\n### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.\n\n### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.\n\n \n\n### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.\n\n \n\n# 3.0 Site background\n\n## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.\n\n## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n## 3.3 Kirribilli House\n\n### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.\n\n \n\n## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).\n\n### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)\n\n### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.\n\n## 3.5 Other elements\n\n### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |\n\n \n\n# 4.0 Historical background\n\n## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.\n\n## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).\n\n## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.\n\n### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.\n\n#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.\n\n#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.\n\n#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.\n\n### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.\n\n#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.\n\n#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.\n\n### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |\n\n### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |\n\n### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":27},{"sectionNumber":"2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)","content":"### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.","sortOrder":28},{"sectionNumber":"2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992","content":"### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.","sortOrder":29},{"sectionNumber":"2.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines","content":"Table 1‑7: Summary of Significance Rankings for Natural Heritage Values\n\n| Significance Ranking | Justification- Natural |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates individual or collective characteristics that are rare or unique in AustraliaSpecies, area, or ecosystem is in high level of health, condition and integrityLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements would substantially undermine the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| High | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates a rare example of individual or collective characteristics or features physically linking or defining spaceSpecies, area, or ecosystem is largely intact and in good state of health;Loss, damage, or removal of components or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and of the site overall. |\n| Moderate | Area or ecosystem demonstrates valuable (although modified) qualitiesIntact enough to be interpreted as a discrete space or as part of the site overall with ability to be regeneratedLoss, damage, or removal of component elements or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and potentially of the site overall if inappropriately managed. |\n| Low | Species, area, or ecosystem demonstrates some (but possibly largely altered) defining qualities Area or ecosystem not in a good state of health and regeneration in doubtLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements may not detract from the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| None (Does not meet CHL criteria) | Species, area, or ecosystem does not reflect or demonstrate any cultural heritage values. |\n| Intrusive | Loss, alteration, or removal of component elements actually contribute to the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n\n### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.\n\n## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |\n\n### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.\n\n## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.\n\n## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.\n\n## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.\n\n# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.\n\n## 2.1 Commonwealth Controls\n\n### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).\n\n### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.\n\n## 2.2 State and local legislation\n\n### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.\n\n### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)\n\n### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)\n\n### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.\n\n## 2.3 Other relevant Legislation and Codes\n\n### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.\n\n### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.\n\n## 2.4 Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines\n\n### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.\n\n### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.\n\n### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.\n\n### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.\n\n \n\n### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.\n\n \n\n# 3.0 Site background\n\n## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.\n\n## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n## 3.3 Kirribilli House\n\n### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.\n\n \n\n## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).\n\n### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)\n\n### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.\n\n## 3.5 Other elements\n\n### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |\n\n \n\n# 4.0 Historical background\n\n## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.\n\n## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).\n\n## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.\n\n### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.\n\n#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.\n\n#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.\n\n#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.\n\n### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.\n\n#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.\n\n#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.\n\n### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |\n\n### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |\n\n### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":30},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.1 The Burra Charter","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.1 The Burra Charter","content":"### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.","sortOrder":31},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting I","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values","content":"### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.","sortOrder":32},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.3 Engage Early","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.3 Engage Early","content":"### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.","sortOrder":33},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charte","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter","content":"### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.","sortOrder":34},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.5 National Trust of Australia","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.5 National Trust of Australia","content":"### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.","sortOrder":35},{"sectionNumber":"3.0","sectionType":"part","heading":"Site background","content":"Table 1‑7: Summary of Significance Rankings for Natural Heritage Values\n\n| Significance Ranking | Justification- Natural |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates individual or collective characteristics that are rare or unique in AustraliaSpecies, area, or ecosystem is in high level of health, condition and integrityLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements would substantially undermine the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| High | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates a rare example of individual or collective characteristics or features physically linking or defining spaceSpecies, area, or ecosystem is largely intact and in good state of health;Loss, damage, or removal of components or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and of the site overall. |\n| Moderate | Area or ecosystem demonstrates valuable (although modified) qualitiesIntact enough to be interpreted as a discrete space or as part of the site overall with ability to be regeneratedLoss, damage, or removal of component elements or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and potentially of the site overall if inappropriately managed. |\n| Low | Species, area, or ecosystem demonstrates some (but possibly largely altered) defining qualities Area or ecosystem not in a good state of health and regeneration in doubtLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements may not detract from the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| None (Does not meet CHL criteria) | Species, area, or ecosystem does not reflect or demonstrate any cultural heritage values. |\n| Intrusive | Loss, alteration, or removal of component elements actually contribute to the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n\n### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.\n\n## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |\n\n### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.\n\n## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.\n\n## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.\n\n## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.\n\n# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.\n\n## 2.1 Commonwealth Controls\n\n### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).\n\n### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.\n\n## 2.2 State and local legislation\n\n### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.\n\n### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)\n\n### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)\n\n### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.\n\n## 2.3 Other relevant Legislation and Codes\n\n### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.\n\n### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.\n\n## 2.4 Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines\n\n### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.\n\n### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.\n\n### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.\n\n### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.\n\n \n\n### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.\n\n \n\n# 3.0 Site background\n\n## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.\n\n## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n## 3.3 Kirribilli House\n\n### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.\n\n \n\n## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).\n\n### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)\n\n### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.\n\n## 3.5 Other elements\n\n### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |\n\n \n\n# 4.0 Historical background\n\n## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.\n\n## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).\n\n## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.\n\n### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.\n\n#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.\n\n#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.\n\n#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.\n\n### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.\n\n#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.\n\n#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.\n\n### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |\n\n### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |\n\n### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":36},{"sectionNumber":"3.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Introduction","content":"## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.","sortOrder":37},{"sectionNumber":"3.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Landscape setting","content":"## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |","sortOrder":38},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirrib","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House","content":"### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |","sortOrder":39},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.2 Description of the allotment","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.2 Description of the allotment","content":"### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```","sortOrder":40},{"sectionNumber":"3.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Kirribilli House","content":"Table 1‑7: Summary of Significance Rankings for Natural Heritage Values\n\n| Significance Ranking | Justification- Natural |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates individual or collective characteristics that are rare or unique in AustraliaSpecies, area, or ecosystem is in high level of health, condition and integrityLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements would substantially undermine the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| High | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates a rare example of individual or collective characteristics or features physically linking or defining spaceSpecies, area, or ecosystem is largely intact and in good state of health;Loss, damage, or removal of components or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and of the site overall. |\n| Moderate | Area or ecosystem demonstrates valuable (although modified) qualitiesIntact enough to be interpreted as a discrete space or as part of the site overall with ability to be regeneratedLoss, damage, or removal of component elements or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and potentially of the site overall if inappropriately managed. |\n| Low | Species, area, or ecosystem demonstrates some (but possibly largely altered) defining qualities Area or ecosystem not in a good state of health and regeneration in doubtLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements may not detract from the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| None (Does not meet CHL criteria) | Species, area, or ecosystem does not reflect or demonstrate any cultural heritage values. |\n| Intrusive | Loss, alteration, or removal of component elements actually contribute to the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n\n### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.\n\n## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |\n\n### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.\n\n## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.\n\n## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.\n\n## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.\n\n# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.\n\n## 2.1 Commonwealth Controls\n\n### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).\n\n### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.\n\n## 2.2 State and local legislation\n\n### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.\n\n### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)\n\n### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)\n\n### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.\n\n## 2.3 Other relevant Legislation and Codes\n\n### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.\n\n### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.\n\n## 2.4 Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines\n\n### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.\n\n### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.\n\n### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.\n\n### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.\n\n \n\n### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.\n\n \n\n# 3.0 Site background\n\n## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.\n\n## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n## 3.3 Kirribilli House\n\n### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.\n\n \n\n## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).\n\n### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)\n\n### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.\n\n## 3.5 Other elements\n\n### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |\n\n \n\n# 4.0 Historical background\n\n## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.\n\n## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).\n\n## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.\n\n### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.\n\n#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.\n\n#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.\n\n#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.\n\n### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.\n\n#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.\n\n#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.\n\n### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |\n\n### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |\n\n### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":41},{"sectionNumber":"3.3.1 Exterior","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.3.1 Exterior","content":"### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```","sortOrder":42},{"sectionNumber":"3.3.2 Internal Description","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.3.2 Internal Description","content":"### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |","sortOrder":43},{"sectionNumber":"3.3.3 Condition","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.3.3 Condition","content":"### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.","sortOrder":44},{"sectionNumber":"3.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Garden","content":"## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).","sortOrder":45},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.1 Garden areas","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.1 Garden areas","content":"### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)","sortOrder":46},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.2 Area 1 — Entry gate and driveway","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.2 Area 1 — Entry gate and driveway","content":"### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":47},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.3 Area 2 — Northern boundary garden","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.3 Area 2 — Northern boundary garden","content":"### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |","sortOrder":48},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.4 Area 3 — Central Garden","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.4 Area 3 — Central Garden","content":"### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":49},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.5 Area 4 — Viewing Area","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.5 Area 4 — Viewing Area","content":"### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |","sortOrder":50},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.6 Area 5 — Lawn","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.6 Area 5 — Lawn","content":"### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":51},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.7 Area 6 — Upper foreshore","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.7 Area 6 — Upper foreshore","content":"### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":52},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.8 Area 7 — Foreshore","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.8 Area 7 — Foreshore","content":"### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":53},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.9 Area 8 — Southern Garden","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.9 Area 8 — Southern Garden","content":"### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":54},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.10 Area 9 — Service Area","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.10 Area 9 — Service Area","content":"### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":55},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.11 Area 10 — Kitchen Garden","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.11 Area 10 — Kitchen Garden","content":"### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":56},{"sectionNumber":"3.4.12 Condition","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.4.12 Condition","content":"### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.","sortOrder":57},{"sectionNumber":"3.5","sectionType":"part","heading":"Other elements","content":"Table 1‑7: Summary of Significance Rankings for Natural Heritage Values\n\n| Significance Ranking | Justification- Natural |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates individual or collective characteristics that are rare or unique in AustraliaSpecies, area, or ecosystem is in high level of health, condition and integrityLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements would substantially undermine the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| High | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates a rare example of individual or collective characteristics or features physically linking or defining spaceSpecies, area, or ecosystem is largely intact and in good state of health;Loss, damage, or removal of components or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and of the site overall. |\n| Moderate | Area or ecosystem demonstrates valuable (although modified) qualitiesIntact enough to be interpreted as a discrete space or as part of the site overall with ability to be regeneratedLoss, damage, or removal of component elements or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and potentially of the site overall if inappropriately managed. |\n| Low | Species, area, or ecosystem demonstrates some (but possibly largely altered) defining qualities Area or ecosystem not in a good state of health and regeneration in doubtLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements may not detract from the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| None (Does not meet CHL criteria) | Species, area, or ecosystem does not reflect or demonstrate any cultural heritage values. |\n| Intrusive | Loss, alteration, or removal of component elements actually contribute to the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n\n### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.\n\n## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |\n\n### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.\n\n## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.\n\n## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.\n\n## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.\n\n# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.\n\n## 2.1 Commonwealth Controls\n\n### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).\n\n### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.\n\n## 2.2 State and local legislation\n\n### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.\n\n### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)\n\n### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)\n\n### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.\n\n## 2.3 Other relevant Legislation and Codes\n\n### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.\n\n### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.\n\n## 2.4 Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines\n\n### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.\n\n### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.\n\n### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.\n\n### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.\n\n \n\n### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.\n\n \n\n# 3.0 Site background\n\n## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.\n\n## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n## 3.3 Kirribilli House\n\n### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.\n\n \n\n## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).\n\n### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)\n\n### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.\n\n## 3.5 Other elements\n\n### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |\n\n \n\n# 4.0 Historical background\n\n## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.\n\n## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).\n\n## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.\n\n### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.\n\n#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.\n\n#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.\n\n#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.\n\n### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.\n\n#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.\n\n#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.\n\n### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |\n\n### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |\n\n### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":58},{"sectionNumber":"3.5.1 Guard house","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.5.1 Guard house","content":"### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":59},{"sectionNumber":"3.5.2 Garage","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.5.2 Garage","content":"### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":60},{"sectionNumber":"3.5.3 Storeroom","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.5.3 Storeroom","content":"### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":61},{"sectionNumber":"3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse","content":"### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":62},{"sectionNumber":"3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences","content":"### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":63},{"sectionNumber":"3.6","sectionType":"part","heading":"Views from Kirribilli House","content":"## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |","sortOrder":64},{"sectionNumber":"4.0","sectionType":"part","heading":"Historical background","content":"Table 1‑7: Summary of Significance Rankings for Natural Heritage Values\n\n| Significance Ranking | Justification- Natural |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates individual or collective characteristics that are rare or unique in AustraliaSpecies, area, or ecosystem is in high level of health, condition and integrityLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements would substantially undermine the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| High | The species, area or ecosystem demonstrates a rare example of individual or collective characteristics or features physically linking or defining spaceSpecies, area, or ecosystem is largely intact and in good state of health;Loss, damage, or removal of components or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and of the site overall. |\n| Moderate | Area or ecosystem demonstrates valuable (although modified) qualitiesIntact enough to be interpreted as a discrete space or as part of the site overall with ability to be regeneratedLoss, damage, or removal of component elements or defining qualities may detract from the cultural heritage values of the area or ecosystem and potentially of the site overall if inappropriately managed. |\n| Low | Species, area, or ecosystem demonstrates some (but possibly largely altered) defining qualities Area or ecosystem not in a good state of health and regeneration in doubtLoss, alteration, or removal of component elements may not detract from the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n| None (Does not meet CHL criteria) | Species, area, or ecosystem does not reflect or demonstrate any cultural heritage values. |\n| Intrusive | Loss, alteration, or removal of component elements actually contribute to the cultural heritage values of the place overall. |\n\n### 1.7.4 Knowledge Gap Analysis\n\nPreliminary review of reports for the site highlighted the following knowledge gaps:\n\n The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysis\n Although there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be located\n Discussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruins\n Discussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listed\n Demonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistas\n Clarity in the process of works approval\n Reliance on the Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan 2020, Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) alone is insufficient to demonstrate significance of the landscape elements. This means including information from the HMP, 2016 and previous landscape assessments.\n\nA list of unsolved problems listed in the Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy 1985, Clive Lucas & Partners (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986) are still unanswered. There are likely to be various reasons why they have not been resolved over the past 40 years, one of which is that a number of studies and documents have been produced over this time but were not consolidated, with some documents falling into disuse and thereafter overlooked. This iteration of the HMP has sought to rectify this by consolidating all relevant previous studies and has thus identified the unresolved issues.\n\nFurther, some of these issues require physical interventions to fabric and so may only be undertaken opportunistically as part of other works. It is recommended that the next HMP review should start by attempting to solve these issues through additional research. Some of these questions may be answered by detailed physical examination or during physical interventions to the fabric:\n\n Confirmation of the position and detail of the original staircase\n The detail of the original front door\n The detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevation\n The early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of Study\n The detail of the original verandah\n The detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracket\n Details of the original drawing room windows\n The early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880\n The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920\n The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920\n Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and grates\n The detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbour\n Details of original fencing and gates.\n\n## 1.8 Consultation\n\nConsultation for this HMP has involved:\n\n An inception meeting with PM&C stakeholders for overall project\n Consultation with onsite House Manager\n Inception meeting and on-site field inspection with an Indigenous stakeholder relating to Indigenous heritage\n Progress meetings with PM&C, including during site visits.\n\nAECOM consulted with the Indigenous stakeholder groups and representatives outlined in Table 1‑8\\. The consultation list was derived by writing to agencies, which included Heritage NSW, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Services Corporation Limited, local council and the catchment management authority, requesting contact details for any relevant Aboriginal groups or individuals. An email inviting expressions of interest and containing summary information on the project was sent to all Aboriginal persons and organisations identified by the regulatory agencies and a total of 16 registrations resulted. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council cultural officer and archaeologist Rowena Welsh-Jarrett attended the site inspection of Kirribilli House. This was due to security issues necessitating a small core field team for site works. It was reasoned that as the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was a representative body that had been involved in previous inspections at Kirribilli House, they were the most appropriate group to attend.\n\nDetails of the consultation process and Indigenous values are included in Appendix J. \n\nTable 1‑8: Registered Aboriginal Organisations consulted\n\n| Organisation | Contact | Date of Registration |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- |\n| A1 Indigenous Services Pty Ltd | Carolyn Hickey | 22/05/2023 |\n| Aboriginal Heritage Office, North Sydney Council, Freshwater | Phil Hunt and/or Karen Smith | 1/05/2023 |\n| Butucarbin | Jennifer Beale | 1/05/2023 |\n| Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation | Justine Coplin | 8/05/2023 |\n| Didge Ngunawal Clan | Paul Boyd and/or Lilly Carroll | 28/04/2023 |\n| Ginninderra Aboriginal Corporation | Krystle Carroll Elliott | 2/05/2023 |\n| Gunjeewong | Shayne Dickson | 2/05/2023 |\n| Guringai Tribal Link | Paul Craig | 8/05/2023 |\n| Kamilaroi Yankuntjatjara Working Group | Phil Kahn | 5/05/2023 |\n| Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council | Rowena Welsh-Jarrett | 9/05/2023 |\n| Muragadi | Anthony Johnson | 1/05/2023 |\n| Murrabidgee | Darleen Johnson | 30/04/2023 |\n| Raw CULTURAL Healing | Raymond Weatherall | 1/05/2023 |\n| Thomas Dahlstrom (Cultural Heritage Consultant) | Thomas Dahlstrom | 2/05/2023 |\n| Tocomwall Pty Ltd | Scott Franks | 28/04/2023 |\n| Wailwan | Phil Boney | 2/05/2023 |\n\n### 1.8.1 Public exhibition\n\nIn accordance with paragraph 341(S)(6)(b) of the EPBC Act and 10.03C of the Regulations, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sought public comments about the matters addressed by the updated HMP by publishing a public notice in 2023 and placing the draft plan on exhibition. No submissions were received in response to this; this document has been finalised following the close of public notification and exhibition.\n\n## 1.9 Assumptions and Limitations\n\nGiven the extensive coverage of the history of Kirribilli House in previous HMPs, limited historical research has been undertaken as part of this HMP. Historical information provided is based on previous reports, principally the 2016 HMP by GML Heritage.\n\n## 1.10 Authorship\n\nThis HMP was prepared by Principal Heritage Architect, Ameera Mahmood with assistance from Senior Heritage Consultant Deborah Farina. The Indigenous assessment was undertaken by ANZ Technical Lead, Dr Darran Jordan, and the Tree and Shrub Survey by Technical Director, Jamie McMahon. \nA quality and technical review was also undertaken by Dr Darran Jordan.\n\n## 1.11 Acknowledgements\n\nAECOM would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance during the preparation of this report:\n\n Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council representative Rowena Welsh-Jarrett\n The onsite House Manager\n\n Representatives of PM&C.\n\n# 2.0 Statutory Controls\n\nKirribilli House is located on Commonwealth land, hence the primary instruments that are applicable to the subject site are Commonwealth legislation. The PM&C do not need to meet the State or local legislation however, the PM&C Heritage Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023a) states that any activities within its properties in principle will aim to comply with the principles set out in the State and local government requirements.\n\n## 2.1 Commonwealth Controls\n\n### 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act)\n\nThe EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical cultural heritage items. Under the Act, protected heritage items are listed on the NHL (items of significance to the nation) or the CHL (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE), which has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list and so has not had its listings included in this HMP.\n\nThe heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted; the site is listed under two listings in the CHL.\n\nUnder Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), \nmay only progress with approval of the commonwealth minister responsible for heritage. An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:\n\n It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; or\n It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.\n\nThe primary objective of the EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, particularly those aspects that are MNES. The key parts of the EPBC Act that are of direct relevance to the heritage assessment and management of the Kirribilli House and Garden are:\n\n Section 26: Requirement for approval of activities involving Commonwealth land with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment\n Section 28: Requirement for approval of activities undertaken by a Commonwealth agency with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nAdditionally, the EPBC Act also identifies requirements for the protection of Commonwealth Heritage, being:\n\n Section 341S: Requirement that a Commonwealth agency must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls (a Heritage Management Plan such as this one)\n Section 341ZC: Requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage values of a place included on the NHL and/or CHL\n Section 341V: Requirement to comply with a plan prepared under Section 341S\n Section 341X: Requirement to review a plan prepared under Section 341S at least once every five years\n Section 341ZE: Requirement to provide ongoing protection of heritage values of a place included on the CHL in the event of sale or transfer.\n\nSections 26 and 28\n\nThe EPBC Act requires actions on Commonwealth land (Section 26) and actions undertaken by a Commonwealth agency (Section 28) to be assessed for the likelihood that these actions will have a significant impact on the environment. The term ‘environment’ has a broader coverage than MNES and relates to environmental matters that are not necessarily formally listed.\n\nThe Act defines the environment as:\n\n Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities\n Natural and physical resources\n The qualities and characteristics of locations, places, and areas\n Heritage values of places\n The social, economic, and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).\n\nAny actions which will, or are likely, to significantly impact the environment need to be assessed. \nIf potentially significant impacts are identified, opportunities for their avoidance, reduction or management must be sought. A referral under the EPBC Act may also need to be considered.\n\nThe World Heritage listed Sydney Opera House and its buffer zone are a MNES, thus constituting an additional statutory arrangement that applies to Kirribilli House and Gardens. There is, therefore, a requirement to consider this MNES in relation to any proposed works and ongoing management at Kirribilli House and Gardens. The most likely impact, due to the distance between the two places, is visual, which has been addressed in Section 7.7.4 under Policy 15 for significant views (see also Figure 2‑1).\n\n### 2.1.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984\n\nThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act) provides for the preservation and protection of places, areas, and objects of particular significance to Indigenous Australians. The stated purpose of the ATSIHP Act is the “preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 4).\n\nUnder the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ is defined as “the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ is an area of land or water in Australia that is of “particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (Part I, Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’, on the other hand, refers to an object (including Aboriginal remains) of like significance.\n\nFor the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to have been injured or desecrated if:\n\n In the case of an area:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition\n The use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected\n Passage through, or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\n In the case of an object:\n\n It is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition.\n\nA person must not adversely affect declared significant Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, \nor Aboriginal remains.\n\nDuty-of-care notification requirements exist under this Act where a site or artefact is disturbed as \na result of any activity.\n\n## 2.2 State and local legislation\n\n### 2.2.1 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)\n\nThe Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects, or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW SHR. \nItems that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the NSW State Heritage Register by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council.\n\nKirribilli House is not listed on the NSW SHR; however, a preliminary assessment indicates that it may be eligible for listing. However, this is outside the scope of this document.\n\n### 2.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)\n\nThe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provides the legislative framework for environmental planning in NSW. The Act and associated regulation include provisions to ensure that all development proposals that have the potential to have an impact on the environment are subject to an appropriate level of assessment, while also providing opportunity for public involvement. This framework is supported by a range of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and LEPs.\n\nAs a site that is situated on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, there are relevant sections in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 that are applicable to Kirribilli House. The site can be impacted and can cause an impact to other items of environmental values on the Harbour. Prominent sites include the World heritage listed Sydney Opera House which has a visual buffer zone extending to Kirribilli Point.\n\n![Aerial map image of Sydney's Harbour highlighting Kirribilli House and Opera House. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 2‑1: Sydney Opera House buffer zone extends to Kirribilli House (circled red) (SREP 2005)\n\n### 2.2.3 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Local)\n\nThe site is located wholly within the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), in which the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is the North Sydney LEP 2013. Clause 5.10 of the North Sydney LEP provides specific provisions for the protection of heritage items and relics within the North Sydney LGA.\n\nUnder the North Sydney LEP, development consent is required for any of the following:\n\n1. demolishing or moving a heritage item\n2. altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish, or appearance\n3. altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior\n4. moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing, or moving a relic\n5. erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.\n\nSchedule 5 of the North Sydney LEP 2013 provides a list of heritage items within the North Sydney LGA where the site is listed as “Kirribilli House” (I0264). Kirribilli House is also within the Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11).\n\n![Picture is a map that shows the vicinity of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area and highlights areas for consideration of heritage conservation.](image.010.png)\n\nFigure 2‑2: Extent of Kirribilli Heritage Conservation Area (CA11) in red hatching. Kirribilli House is outlined in blue (Source: NSW Government Planning Portal, North Sydney LEP 2013, Heritage Map 4)\n\n### 2.2.4 North Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013\n\nThe significance of Kirribilli Conservation Area has been identified in the North Sydney DCP 2013 as:\n\n(a) as a consistent early 20th century residential area with a mix of Federation and one or two storey Inter War dwelling houses and two or three storey residential flat buildings on large allotments with a strong orientation to the water\n\n(b) as a largely intact early 20th century suburb retaining much of the urban detail and fabric seen in gardens, fencing, street formations, use of sandstone and later reinforced concrete “naturale” fencing, sandstone kerbing, natural rock faces, wide streets, and compatible plantings\n\n(c) for its unity derived from its subdivision history which is still clearly seen in the development of the area\n\n(d) as containing the important government buildings Kirribilli House and Admiralty House.\n\nIdentified significant elements include the sloping site falling to Sydney Harbour, irregular street pattern and topography as well as views to Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the City of Sydney.\n\n## 2.3 Other relevant Legislation and Codes\n\n### 2.3.1 National Construction Code (NCC)\n\nThe National Construction Code (NCC) sets out the legal requirements for building construction in Australia. The main provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) within the NCC include structural requirements, fire resistance, access and egress, services, equipment, health and amenities. The NCC include separate compliance for each State and territory and cites relevant Australian standards.\n\nWhen considering the BCA requirements in heritage buildings, proposals must ensure that heritage significant fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised. Where proposed works do not meet deemed-to-satisfy provisions, alternative solutions should be sought which might include seeking dispensation for heritage elements or performance-based solutions. Modifications to the site should consider the most sympathetic option to the heritage values of the site.\n\n### 2.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992\n\nThe Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. Clause 11 relating to unjustifiable hardship is particularly relevant to heritage sites:\n\n(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:\n\n(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned\n\n(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned\n\n(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person\n\n(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person\n\n(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.\n\nIn relation to Kirribilli House, the predominant issues revolve around access throughout the site by staff and visitors. Unjustifiable hardships can include modifications to highly significant fabric. There is opportunity to reach a balance between DDA compliance and a sympathetic solution to the heritage values of the site.\n\n## 2.4 Non-Statutory Information and Guidelines\n\n### 2.4.1 The Burra Charter\n\nThe Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, \nor undertake works to places of cultural significance including owners, managers and custodians. \nThe Charter provides specific guidance for physical and procedural actions that should occur in relation to significant places. A copy of the charter can be accessed online at http://icomos.org/australia.\n\n### 2.4.2 Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values\n\nAsk First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Ask First) was developed by the Australian Heritage Commission (now Australian Heritage Council) to provide a process for Indigenous cultural heritage consultation and management; it has been adopted as the standard approach by Federal government agencies, including Finance. Ask First (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) recommends a three-stage consultation process:\n\n Initial consultation\n\n \\- Identify Traditional Owners\n \\- Meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project or activity\n\n Identifying Indigenous heritage places and values\n\n \\- Undertake background research\n \\- Ensure that the relevant Indigenous people are actively involved and identify their heritage places and values\n\n Managing Indigenous heritage places\n\n \\- Identify any special management requirements with relevant Indigenous people\n \\- Implement and review outcomes with relevant Indigenous people and other stakeholders.\n\nThe consultation process outlined in Section 1.8 was undertaken in accordance with these guidelines.\n\n### 2.4.3 Engage Early\n\nEngage Early: Guidance for proponents on best practice Indigenous engagement for environmental assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Engage Early) was developed by the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 and should be read in conjunction with Ask First (refer to Section 2.4.2). Engage Early provides framework for an early and cooperative approach for how proponents should engage and consult with Indigenous peoples during the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe framework for what is considered to be best practice consultation includes:\n\n The early identification and acknowledgement of all relevant Indigenous peoples and communities\n Building trust by early and ongoing engagement, commitment, and clarity\n Being aware of statutory processes regarding consultation and consent processes\n Establishing appropriate timeframes for consultation\n Demonstrating appropriate cultural awareness and respect for the Indigenous people’s timeframes and desires.\n\n### 2.4.4 Australian Natural Heritage Charter\n\nThe Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) contains best practice conservation principles for the establishment of natural heritage values and how to manage them. \nIt provides a framework for the management and restoration of natural systems.\n\n \n\n### 2.4.5 National Trust of Australia\n\nThe National Trust of Australia (National Trust NSW) is a non-government, non-profit, community organisation incorporated as a public limited company under Australian Corporations law. The National Trust NSW maintains a register of heritage places in NSW that have been assessed as having cultural and historical value. Inclusion on the National Trust’s register does not afford statutory protection. However, it does highlight the heritage significance of a place and promotes consideration of ongoing statutory protection options.\n\nKirribilli House is included on the NSW National Trust Register.\n\n \n\n# 3.0 Site background\n\n## 3.1 Introduction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is comprised of three key components:\n\n  Landscape setting\n  Kirribilli House\n  Garden.\n\nEach of these elements are described in the sections below. A physical inspection of the site was conducted between 15 and 16 March 2023 by Ameera Mahmood (Principal Heritage Architect) and Deborah Farina (Senior Historical Archaeologist) of AECOM. Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix H, which includes individual tables describing each heritage element, its condition and integrity. A site inspection was undertaken on 18 May by Dr Darran Jordan (AECOM) and Rowena Welsh-Jarrett (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council) to identify and discuss Indigenous heritage values. The findings are included in Section 4.1. A tree survey was undertaken by Jamie McMahon (Technical Director of Environment) and Kai Irrgang (Graduate Environmental Scientist) of AECOM on 15 March 2023. The findings of the tree survey are included in Appendix I.\n\n## 3.2 Landscape setting\n\nKirribilli House is situated at Kirribilli Point, a peninsula on the northern side of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour Bridge and Milson’s Point are directly to the west of Kirribilli Point and Careening Cove is directly to the east. The topography of Kirribilli Point consists of typical Hawkesbury sandstone formation. The land slopes from the ridge above Kirribilli Avenue (formerly Campbell Street) towards the water in moderate steep slopes in a series of sandstone rock benches and outcrops (Casey & Lowe, 1995:1) (Figure 3-1,Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4).\n\nKirribilli and Admiralty House are in the lower section of the peninsula with direct access to the waterfront. Both sites are positioned prominently on the harbour and together they form part of a continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. \nKirribilli House and Garden have been purposefully positioned on the elevated dramatic foreshore setting to gain access to harbour views and by doing so has become a prominent feature on Sydney Harbour.\n\n![A picture from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House hidden by vegetation and the opera house to the left. \n](image.011.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑1: Kirribilli House (obscured by vegetation) and gardens showing context of the Sydney CBD, Opera House and extant bathing pool seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of the Sydney Harbour bridge behind vegetation from the cliff of Kirribilli point and surrounded by a body of water](image.012.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑2: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks showing context of the Sydney Harbour Bridge seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![A picture of Kirribilli House and garden from the harbour displays the large trees, bushes and rocks that surround the houses parameter. ](image.013.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑3: Kirribilli House and garden seen from the harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\n![Picture shows the house surrounded by a body of water. ](image.014.png)\n\nFigure 3‑4: Adjacent Admiralty House, garden and Marine Barracks (below) and garden of Kirribilli House (right of photo) seen from a harbour ferry (AECOM, 2023)\n\nBoth Kirribilli and Admiralty House are key contributory items within the Kirribilli Conservation Area listed in the North Sydney LEP 2013. The Conservation Area is described in the North Sydney DCP as follows:\n\nThe Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of small, medium, and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and residential flat buildings with modern residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n(North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-16)\n\nThe central focus of Kirribilli peninsula is the Kirribilli Village Centre that includes a community centre, local shops and cafes. The village is surrounded by residential buildings as well as a small number of education, transport, maritime, community facilities and views to Sydney Harbour (North Sydney Council, 2013:C8-2) (Figure 3-5 \\- Figure 3-8).\n\n| Figure 3‑5: Broughton Street looking towards Kirribilli Village Centre (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑6: Broughton Street lookout (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑7: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑8: Residential buildings on Kirribilli Avenue (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.1 Broader views and vistas to Kirribilli House\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House within Kirribilli Point form part of the broader Sydney harbourside landscape. The site can be appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from the Sydney Opera House (Figure 3‑9), Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (Figure 3‑10) and distant views from Bradleys Head.\n\n| Figure 3‑9: View from Sydney Opera House (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑10: View from Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.2.2 Description of the allotment\n\nAdmiralty House occupies the southernmost tip of Kirribilli Point and Kirribilli House is located directly east of Admiralty House. Kirribilli House shares a 130-year history with Admiralty House and was part \nof Admiralty House’s estate prior to subdivision in 1854. Kirribilli House is bound by Kirribilli Avenue and Lady Gowrie Lookout to the north, Sydney Harbour foreshore to the east and Admiralty House to the west.\n\nThe allotment is a triangular shape (Figure 3‑11), oriented in an east west direction and retains its generous 1850s land parcel. Primary access to Kirribilli House is from the south side of Kirribilli Avenue. The property boundary is fenced by a high stone wall and picket fence on the northern boundary. \nThe entrance is marked by entry gates and leads to a gravel driveway inside the property and parking area and garage to the west. The driveway has been extensively modified since 1957. Immediately inside the gate on the east is a guard house. The driveway extends into the site forming a circular loop on the northern side of site. The main house is positioned centrally on the block on a cleared flat bench and is directly south of the driveway loop. The land falls steeply and dramatically to the east towards the harbour to sandstone cliffs and a rock apron at the side of the harbour.\n\nAt the northeast end of the site accessed by a steep stair, is the current access to the water and the remains of the former boat harbour, bathing pool, stone walling and boat sheds. Along the southern boundary are pathways that connect Kirribilli House with the grounds of Admiralty House (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton) (Figure 3‑12 - Figure 3‑16).\n\n![A picture of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House grounds as a detailed aerial shot map outlining key areas of the houses landscape. ](image.021.jpeg)\n\nFigure 3‑11: Site survey and elements (GML 2016 with AECOM updates)\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑12: Kirribilli Avenue looking west showing stone wall at property boundary and views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑13: Lady Gowrie lookout looking east showing timber paling fence at property boundary and views to the harbour (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑14: Main entrance to Kirribilli House through iron gates from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑15: Stone wall and transition to timber paling fence from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑16: Kirribilli House from Kirribilli Avenue looking south (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n## 3.3 Kirribilli House\n\n### 3.3.1 Exterior\n\nKirribilli House has an irregular massing and is a modest scale. It is oriented in an east west direction and is asymmetrical in plan. It is a two-storey building designed in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style (1856). The building has a sandstone foundation with a timber framed floor. External walls (single skin) are rendered painted stone (1856 structure), painted face stone (1860s and 1880s additions), some rendered ashlar imitations and rendered painted brickwork (later additions). The roof is dominant and complex with steep pitched gables, slate clad, with lead capping and traceried bargeboards. The roof ridge is terracotta. Chimneys are slender with twin terracotta pots. There is a broad stone flagged verandah (single storied) to the east and south elevations. Windows are vertically proportioned and are multi-paned. French doors have timber shutters. Dormer windows are located at the southern elevation.\n\nThe principal elevation is to the north (Figure 3‑17). The main entrance is marked by a pair of timber doors with a fanlight above. The main feature on this elevation is the prominent Gothic style gables. Particularly a large central gable which contains a castellated parapet wall above a bay window.\n\nThe east elevation (Figure 3‑18) is defined by timber verandahs to the ground floor, twin gables that frame double hung windows with timber shutters. The south elevation (Figure 3‑19 and Figure 3‑20) \nis defined by the timber framed verandah on the ground floor and three dormers centrally placed. \nThe west elevation (Figure 3‑21) is characterised by three narrow gables and the simple form of the service wing which originates from 1957.\n\n```html\n

\"A

Figure 3‑17: North elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑18: East elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑19: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑20: Part south elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑21: West elevation (AECOM, 2023)

\"A

Figure 3‑22: Entry lobby detail

\"A

Figure 3‑23: Timber framed verandah detail (AECOM, 2023)

\n```\n\n### 3.3.2 Internal Description\n\nThe principal entry leads to an Entry Lobby (Figure 3‑25) and the main Entry Hall (Figure 3‑26 and Figure 3‑27) which are both oriented in a north south direction. From the hall one can access the Study, Comms room and Toilets to the eastern end of the building. On the western side of the Entry Hall is a secondary hallway (Stair Hall), running in an east west direction and includes stairs leading to the upper floor, wet areas, Green Room (Figure 3‑28) and Bedroom (to the western end). The southern end of the main Entry Hall leads to three open planned rooms including Drawing Room (eastern end) (Figure 3‑29) and Dining Room (Figure 3‑30). The western end of the Stair Hall accesses a room to the south that contains a second stairwell (Figure 3‑31 and Figure 3‑32). From this area, the service wing (west end \nof the building) can all be accessed. This wing includes Cellar, Scullery, Store, Pantry, Staff Room (Figure 3‑33), Kitchen (Figure 3‑34), Manager’s Office, Staff Dressing Room, Ironing/Storeroom, \nand toilets. The verandahs to the east and south can be accessed from the Study, Drawing Room, \nand Dining Rooms. The main rooms in the building are positioned to access the views to the harbour.\n\nFigure 3‑24: Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑25: Entry lobby (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑26: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑27: Stair Hall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑28: Green room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑29: Drawing room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑30: Dining room (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑31: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑32: Second stairwell (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑33: Staff room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑34: Kitchen (AECOM, 2023) |\n\nThe upper level can be accessed from the stairs in the Stair Hall and stairs (Figure 3‑36) in the service wing. A corridor (Figure 3‑37) leads to Bedroom 1 with ensuite and a Family Room to the eastern end (Figure 3‑38). The same corridor accesses the main bathroom and Bedroom 2 (Figure 3‑39). \nAdjacent and north of the stairs is Bedroom 4 (with associated ensuite) and directly south is the Bedroom 3.\n\n \n\nFigure 3‑35: First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 3‑36: Stairwell (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑37: Corridor (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 3‑38: Family room (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑39: Bedroom 2 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑40: Bedroom 4 (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑41: Bedroom 3 (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑42: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑43: Early window hardware (AECOM, 2023) |\n\n### 3.3.3 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the house to be in good condition. Issues noted include rising/falling damp, ground drainage, mould (external storeroom) and minor cracks to walls. These issues were also highlighted in the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) with additional items according to priority:\n\n High priority: Review of roof rafter splices and rectification, removal of debris in roof space, rectification of damp and rot to verandah posts, further structural assessment and rectification of chimneys for restraint and bracing (Note: PM&C have noted that the chimneys are currently being inspected as of May 2023), subfloor inspection to inspection the condition of timber elements, \n pest inspection, recommendation for roof drainage to be assessed by a hydraulic engineer and review of air conditioning due to leaks\n Medium Priority: Installation of a subfloor mechanic ventilation system, application of protective wall primer to stop water ingress, installation of a post-fix damp-proof system, assessment of the stair banister by a BCA consultant, review of grout to shower bases by a specialist contractor, investigation of stormwater and sewer water with a camera by a qualified technician, repair of verandah valley gutter noted be leaking, investigate water tightness of the skylight, installation of roof tie down straps, installation of sarking to main residence and cosmetic defects (organic growth on shingles)\n Low priority: Investigate water damage to storeroom, monitoring of cracks to walls, monitoring of roof rafters above Bedroom 1, monitor plaster ceilings and monitor slope in timber floors.\n\nAdditionally the Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2023, AECOM (AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, 2023) notes the following:\n\n High priority: Like for like replacement and repacking of sandstone front wall (entry gate) (significant section loss, cracking and grouting failure) and strengthening of the northeastern chimney (previously identified as needing repair).\n Medium priority: Geotechnical testing of footing condition supporting the original building and 1920s extension.\n Low priority: Replacement of damaged courtyard pavers.\n\n \n\n## 3.4 Garden\n\nThe plan of the garden is centred around the house and Sydney Harbour. There are a series of gardens on the north, west and southeast of the house that are focused on providing functional requirements of the house, serving as access ways, amenities, privacy, and productive gardens. Whilst the northeast, east and southern areas are focused on recreation. The latter areas are planned in a loose circular and sweeping form with flat grassed and grassed embankments as the central focus providing access to harbour views and connecting the house to the garden. To the north and south are paved pathways that gradually step down to access the lower terraces defined by stacked dry stone walls. Access to the water is only at the northeast corner through steep stone and concrete stairs.\n\nThe following description of the garden has been derived from Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan, Taylor Brammer, 2020:4.\n\nThe grounds of Kirribilli House generally reflect the landscape design principles of a Victorian Rustic Gothic house. These principles include the rolling lawn from the harbour front of the house and terminating in a stone path that winds its way from the house to take advantage of the harbour views and prospect.\n\nA series of meandering paths through established bushes intertwined with rock outcrops continue the theme of pleasure and appreciation of the place. The entry drive is a formal gravel drive that provides a suitable setting to the front entry and complemented with ornamental flowers and terracotta edging to the flower bed.\n\nHowever, the physical elements of the Victorian era landscape details have been eroded through the sometimes awkward replacement of material, for example, stone steps replaced with concrete, stone edging introduced to absorb level changes to a lawn, where for example the lawn should be reduced in level to create an appropriate relationship between lawn and path with a lawn cut edge.\n\nThe garden provides a mixture of generous open grassed areas (north and east sides) for enjoyment and recreation, areas for shade and protection (under large tree canopies and thick plantings), as well as intimate spaces under trees (northeast and to the west of the house). There is some loss of privacy to the house on the northern boundary from the loss of mature trees, especially from the apartments directly opposite on Kirribilli Avenue. A Flame Tree located near the entry porch was removed which now permits additional views to the harbour. Mature trees that are a feature of the garden include two Magnolia grandiflora, a large Camellia reticulata cultivar, a large clump of Strelitzia eclina and a tall Piccabeen (Archontophenix cunninghamiana) along boundary of Admiralty House grounds. A Jelly Palm (Butia capitata) provide a framed view towards the harbour. In the northern area the Hills Fig (Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii) and Deodar are prominent (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\nThe Tree Survey (Figure 5‑57) (full report see Appendix I) completed by AECOM on 15 March 2023 evidence that many significant plants are no longer present on site compared to the recorded trees from the HMP, 2016. These includes; Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Silky Oak \n(Grevillea robusta), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Camellia sp., Purple Vitex (Vitex purpurea), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Illawarra flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolius), \nBull bay (Magnolia grandiflora), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cumquat (Fortunella sp.), \nBay Tree (Laurus nobilis), Rose (Rosa rubiginosa), Port Wine Magnolia (Michelia figo), \nJasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Golden wattle \n(Acacia pycantha), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and Pittosporum undulatum.\n\nThe survey also recorded the presence of many additional plants that were not recorded in the HMP, 2016. Future landscape assessments should review the significance and appropriateness of these plants to determine if they align with the design methodology for the garden.\n\nDespite the loss of significant plants in the garden, the site still retains the principal characteristics of the Victorian layout including the location of the site entry, location of the house, driveway alignment, large dramatic bank immediately east of house, sweeping lawn, grassy lower terraces, rock outcrops, floristic diversity, northern paths accessing the harbour, water access, harbour structures (bathing pool and boat harbour), extant indigenous harbourside vegetation and views to the harbour (Figure 4‑15 and Figure 4‑16).\n\n### 3.4.1 Garden areas\n\nA total of 10 areas were identified in the Taylor Brammer Landscape Management Plan \n(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5). These 10 areas were referred to as ‘precincts’ and were collated by their physical location and characteristics within the grounds. A summary of the garden features is described below. The precincts do not relate to any historical time periods or era; hence this report refers to the ‘precincts’ as ‘areas’. The following text has been directly taken from Taylor Brammer’s report, has been reorganised here for clarity and updated to reflect changes in landscape elements since the 2020 assessment.\n\n![A picture of a landscape map of Kirribilli House outlining key areas of the grounds with each section numbered. ](image.052.png)\n\nFigure 3‑44: Landscape areas within the grounds of Kirribilli House (Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020:5)\n\n### 3.4.2 Area 1 – Entry gate and driveway\n\nThe drive provides the formal entry to Kirribilli House (Figure 3‑45 and Figure 3‑46). The garden hard works detailing is consistent with Victorian Rustic Gothic style. The area is a key landscape zone for Kirribilli House and provides opportunity for a suitable entry to highlight the heritage significance \nof Kirribilli House by restoring an appropriate landscape curtilage to the entry and property.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Entry gate, driveway, and driveway loop\n- Unconsolidated gravel driveway with ornamental flower gardens and lawn\n- Traditional garden edging tiles define the gardens to the house side of the drive\n- The vegetation and driveway character and form provides an appropriate scale and character for the entry to the site\n- Variety of ornamental planting emphasising horticultural diversity and leaf texture (garden bed adjacent to the house)\n- Modified rock outcrop adjacent to the top of the drive that terminates the lawn edge\n\n- Jacaranda in the centre of the roundabout and Camelias to the northern side is not consistent with the style and character for a mid-19th Century picturesque garden. Note: Goeff Britton who undertook the earlier assessment (HMP, 2016) does not agree with this as these plants are likely to have associative significance. Further historic assessment is required to establish their significance.\n\n| Figure 3‑45: Entry gate and driveway (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑46: Driveway loop showing Jacaranda (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.3 Area 2 – Northern boundary garden\n\nThe northern boundary garden is an important buffer to Kirribilli Avenue creating a visual vegetated curtilage providing privacy.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Variety of trees and shrubs and extended stumps of trees\n- Species include Camellia japonica, Jacaranda sp. And Strelitzia sp. Significance of camelias and Jacaranda require further historic assessment as discussed in above section\n- Landscaped areas on the upper portion are contained by fencing and edging whilst in the remaining areas the edging is randomly placed sandstone pieces informally placed to contain garden beds. These garden edges are poorly constructed and compromise the natural sandstone outcrops which are a feature in the garden\n- Tree plantings that have formed a distinct northern boundary have been eroded over time. \n These include a mature Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) and Firewheel tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus).\n\n| Figure 3‑47: Northern boundary (beyond) showing the loss of privacy from the erosion of canopy trees (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑48:3‑49 Garden edges informally placed compromise the natural sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.4 Area 3 – Central Garden\n\nThe garden area is distinguished by a substantial sandstone outcrop with an extensive garden and planting to the base. The vegetation forms a key landscape component to the garden with a large Fig tree creating shade and shelter. It also highlights the underlying geology (sandstone outcrop) and topographic change. The area reinstates the values of the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden with exotic planting creating a sense of discovery of new specimens from Asia, Africa and Australia.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Established trees are layered with shrubs and ground covers\n- Sandstone outcrop, mature vegetation, and poorly constructed rock walls and garden edging\n- Significant trees include Phoenix palms, Ficus macrocarpa var. Hilli, Giant bird of paradise, Camellia japonica and ferns to the lower stratum.\n\n| Figure 3‑50: Sandstone outcrop (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑51: Garden rock wall poorly constructed (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.5 Area 4 – Viewing Area\n\nThe area provides opportunity for enjoyment of the garden and a protected viewing point of Sydney Harbour. The style and character of the planting, paving, and walling is representative of mid-20th Century Garden expression and not consistent with the heritage values of the place.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Extensive sandstone flagged terrace and retaining wall with established tree canopies above the terrace area\n- Sloping lawn to the centre of the precinct is located over a natural sandstone outcrop\n- Lower portion of precinct contains a viewing terrace of regular sandstone pavers and a seat, \n both which are of a scale, character, and form of a mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- Planting is random in character with several self-seeded trees and plants\n- The wall and paving are in very poor condition and access is excluded due to hazardous condition of unstable surfaces\n- The lawn and soil underlay contained by informal sandstone rock is unstable\n- Plantings include shrubs and ground covers, contemporary cultivators such as Philodendron ‘Xanadu’ and planting from the mid-19th Century.\n\n| Figure 3‑52: Flagged terrace and retaining wall (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑53: Viewing terrace (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 3.4.6 Area 5 – Lawn\n\nThe eastern lawn of Kirribilli House is a critical portion of the harbourside setting of house and grounds highlighting the dramatic topographic change from harbourside to house. The lawn slopes steeply from the house to a pathway at the base of the garden. There is evidence at the base of the lawn of a former fishpond under the lawn. The area provides opportunity for the use and enjoyment of the garden and appreciation of the panoramic views of Sydney Harbour available from the site and understanding of the harbour setting.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A sandstone path, metal fence and timber gate provide access to the upper foreshore area. \n The metal fence is corroded\n- The lawn consists of buffalo-type grass that is resilient to the harbourside environment of salt and prevailing easterly winds\n- The lawn has been refurbished and the grass terraces are restored\n- The detailing of the pedestrian path character is inconsistent across the site, reflecting evolving tastes and refurbishment in the 20th Century\n- Plantings consist of shrubs and groundcovers that are inconsistent with the mid-19th Century Victorian Garden\n- The southern portion includes an established clump of Giant White Bird of Paradise, that defines and separates the garden from the grounds of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑54: Steep slope of the lawn (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑55: Poorly constructed garden walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.7 Area 6 – Upper foreshore\n\nThe area provides an appropriate transition from central lawn to the foreshore. The shrub like planting is appropriate as a “wild” transition from grass terrace to the informal rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbourside. The upper foreshore area consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and \nself-seeded plantings across the top of the cliff to the foreshore. The remains of the vegetation and stability is in poor condition and requires reconstruction and assessment. The area provides opportunities to view Sydney Harbour over a contrasting and “wild” garden.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Area defined by low painted metal fence and rock outcrops and is accessed by a timber gate and garden frame. These works are from the 20th Century and are undertaken in a colonial style\n- Informal sandstone path leads to a sitting area consisting of sandstone steps, low garden sandstone wall. This sandstone is poorly constructed and unstable. The sitting area does not have a handrail and is a safety risk for informal use.\n\n| Figure 3‑56: Area bound by metal fence and shrub like plantings (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑57: Shrubs and rock outcrops (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.8 Area 7 – Foreshore\n\nThe area represents key heritage values of the place demonstrating the use and enjoyment of the place as a place of recreation with key and privileged access to the harbour. The foreshore area is distinguished by a cliff face to the harbour. Vegetation consists of a selection of specimen trees with assorted and self-seeded plantings across the edge of the cliff to the foreshore. The shrub like form of the planting is an appropriate form as a continuation of the Upper Foreshore area to the informal and rugged sandstone outcrops of the harbour side.\n\nKey features:\n\n- Existing stairs provide access to the foreshore where there are the remains of a harbourside structures, boat harbour, bathing pool and boatsheds\n- An unsympathetic steel security fencing inhibits access from the harbour to the site\n- There are unconsolidated stone mounds that have been fashioned as informal viewing points to the harbour\n- Recent stabilisation works done to the cliff face at the high-water mark, further assessment is required in relation to the relationship of the cliff face and vegetation in relation to ongoing stability and character\n- Further research is required to accurately assess the condition, original fabric and evidence of the former swimming baths and boathouse\n- The planting continues with the informal shrubs and ground covers in Area 6. There are number \n of weed species including African Olive, Asparagus grass and Crofton Weed\n- Stairs and handrails are not consistent with the materials and detailing of the heritage values of the place.\n\n| Figure 3‑58: Concrete steps (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑59: Mixture of random stone and brick retaining walls (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.9 Area 8 – Southern Garden\n\nThis area provides a framework to the southern side of the garden defining and separating the garden from Admiralty House and creating the southern boundary of the grounds. It is characterised by mature vegetation of mainly camellia bushes and some mature trees. A sandstone and concrete path separate the garden from the lawn area.\n\nKey features:\n\n- A path provides access to the former fishpond location in the lawn precinct\n- The sandstone path has no historic reference. The garden rockeries are inconsistent with the historic garden style of the place\n- The upper portion of the precinct includes a sandstone outcrop with a concrete seat that is not consistent with the heritage values of the place\n- Planting is restricted to mature to semi-mature species, the railing to the path is painted galvanised rail\n- The Bull Bay Magnolia is assessed to have limited life expectancy\n- Provide views through to the Admiralty House and facilities.\n\n| Figure 3‑60: Plantings and paths defining the boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑61: Paving and seating inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.10 Area 9 – Service Area\n\nThis area is a key location for the operations of Kirribilli House. Clear unobstructed views to the house and relation with the garden as well as the broader setting needs to be maintained whilst retaining unobstructed access for the operations of the house.\n\nKey features:\n\n- This area consists of sandstone slabs that extend from the kitchen and verandah of the house and provide hard stand area for functions and day to day requirements of the house\n- Service access path to House\n- Maintenance area directly off verandah paving. The sandstone is generally in good condition with an array of gradients to the paving that could be an issue in relation to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) requirements\n- The fencing and paving are in an appropriate style of the garden\n- Planting is limited to retain the operational requirement of the precinct and has been limited to the shrub planting to the boundary of Admiralty House.\n\n| Figure 3‑62: Existing gate and access (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑63: Concrete paths inconsistent with heritage values (AECOM, 2023) |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.11 Area 10 – Kitchen Garden\n\nThe area is located at the front of the property and provides screening to the service areas of Kirribilli House, provide a productive garden and allowing for the appreciation of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architectural style.\n\nKey features:\n\n- The kitchen garden is located adjacent to the service area of the house. It consists of several level changes, sandstone walls and grassed areas\n- Concrete steps from the House need replacing with sandstone\n- The character and form of the kitchen garden is generally consistent with the heritage values \n of place with detailed planting, sandstone garden walls and paths\n- The paths vary in material including concrete and sandstone.\n\n| Figure 3‑64: Stone retaining wall and hedge to edge of area (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑65: Kitchen Garden (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.4.12 Condition\n\nPhysical inspection undertaken by AECOM on 15 March 2023 found the garden in fair condition. \nIssues noted include; unstable retaining walls, inconsistent ground finishes causing trip hazards, \nlack of appropriate handrails and barriers, inappropriate and poor construction of retaining walls, uneven stone steps, loss of privacy from apartments on Kirribilli Avenue, evidence of inadequate ground drainage.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) identified the following:\n\n Urgent: Intrusive investigation throughout the site, removal of loose stone on wall in Area 10, demolition, and construction of Wall to Area 4\n High priority: Investigation of the condition of wall to laundry building once vegetation has been removed, assessment of metal railing by a BCA consultant, addressing loose stone wall around the harbourside structure to prevent cause injury, engaging a geologist to assess the stability \n of rock faces to the harbour and monitoring of retaining wall to water tank\n Medium priority: Reconstruction of retaining walls to eastern end of Area 1 and steep stair to \n Area 7, spalling concrete steps, routine cleaning of drainage systems, repair large crack to sandstone wall (boundary) and repair displaced mortar to harbourside structures\n Low priority: Stormwater drainage review and deteriorating grouting in sandstone boundary wall.\n\n## 3.5 Other elements\n\n### 3.5.1 Guard house\n\nThe Guard house is located directly east and inside the entry gates and is a contemporary octagonal building that originates from 2003. The walls are weatherboard and timber framed with a slate clad roof. The Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that minor sagging of ceiling slats and minor cracks to walls were noted which should be monitored.\n\n| Figure 3‑66: Guard house east elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑67: Guard house west elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.2 Garage\n\nAlong the western boundary and directly inside the entry gates is a double garage that is a rectilinear shape with a hipped roof that was constructed c.1921. The walls are rendered with a painted brick veneer and the roof has exposed roof rafters under the eaves. The roof is clad with terracotta Marseille roof tiles. The rear of the garage includes a storeroom that previously was a chauffer’s bedroom. A small external addition to the south includes a toilet.\n\nThe Structural Condition Assessment Report, 2019, AECOM (AECOM, 2019) noted that there was an ingress of water from the ridge tiles has led to damp issues and removal of the ceiling. This report recommended that a hydraulic engineer should assess the water discharge from the building.\n\n| Figure 3‑68: Garage north elevation (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑69: Garage western elevation (AECOM, 2023) |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.3 Storeroom\n\nAlong the southwestern boundary is the Laundry and Gardeners amenities building which is built directly on the boundary line but is the land of Admiralty House hence, it has been excluded in the assessment and is included here purely for context of the southwestern boundary. Attached to the laundry room and extending onto the property of Kirribilli House is a small narrow storeroom in a rectangular shape with a kink to the southern end. Walls are timber framed and lined and the roof is metal clad.\n\n| Figure 3‑70: Storeroom west elevation (right of photo) (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑71: Storeroom east elevation (centre of photo) (AECOM, 2023) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.4 Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouse\n\nThe ruins of the bathing pool and boathouse are located on the north-eastern corner of the site and on the foreshore. A steep stone stair leads you from the garden to a gate from which the pool and former boathouse are accessed. A boat harbour is located on the north end with a high wall and gate and there is evidence of the former boatshed in the rock surface. The bathing pool is a rectangular shape structure with a raised stone plinth to its surrounds.\n\n| Figure 3‑72: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑73: Ruins of the boat harbour, bathing pool and boathouses (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 3.5.5 Boundary walls and fences\n\nThe northern boundary is fenced predominantly by a timber paling fence (Figure 3‑16). The entry to the site on the northern boundary is marked by wrought iron gates set within sandstone piers (Figure 3‑14). A sandstone high wall extends to either side of the gate and continues to meet the site boundary of Admiralty House (Figure 3‑12). The southern boundary to Admiralty House is fenced by a combination of contemporary timber lattice, paling and metal fence. The western boundary which includes the garage also has a low stone wall and hedge (Figure 3‑74 and Figure 3‑75).\n\n| Figure 3‑74: Southern boundary to Admiralty House (AECOM, 20223) | Figure 3‑75: Western boundary (AECOM, 20223) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 3.6 Views from Kirribilli House\n\nThe site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden. \nThese include panoramas, framed, and filtered views.\n\n| Figure 3‑76: Framed view of the Sydney Harbour from site entry (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑77: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Fort Denison, and Garden Island from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 3‑78: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour, Bradleys Head, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point from garden (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑79: Panoramic views to Sydney Harbour and Sydney CBD from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑80: Panoramic views to Opera House obscured by plantings, viewed from garden beds closest to foreshore (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑81: Filtered views to the Opera House from garden (AECOM 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑82: Filtered views of Fort Denison from garden paths (AECOM, 2023) | Figure 3‑83: Panoramic views to Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point (AECOM, 2023) |\n| Figure 3‑84: Framed view from upper-level window (AECOM 2023) | Figure 3‑85: Framed view from staff room (AECOM 2023) |\n\n \n\n# 4.0 Historical background\n\n## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.\n\n## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).\n\n## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.\n\n### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.\n\n#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.\n\n#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.\n\n#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.\n\n### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).\n\n#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.\n\n#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.\n\n#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.\n\n### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |\n\n### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |\n\n### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":65},{"sectionNumber":"4.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Indigenous History","content":"## 4.1 Indigenous History\n\nRefer to Appendix J.","sortOrder":66},{"sectionNumber":"4.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Natural History","content":"## 4.2 Natural History\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP and updated by AECOM (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).","sortOrder":67},{"sectionNumber":"4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landsca","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape","content":"#### 4.2.1.1 Vestiges of Pre-European Landscape\n\nVestiges of the pre-European landscape include the dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site. This formation is typical of the area and features steep slopes with sandstone outcrops. The Sydney Sandstone Complex Type included Open Forest/Woodland Formation (Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, 2010a:14). \nThe outcropping has in areas covered by plant growth and built up with steps.\n\nThe local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remained near the south-eastern corner of the site throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th Century (removed by c.1968). Some seedling specimens remain along Kirribilli Avenue and along the eastern cliff line, still remain. Smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) was evident in the archival record and are no longer present. Other local species present at the site include Coastal Banksia \n(Banksia integrifolia), Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus), Sweet Pittosporum \n(Pittosporum undulatum) and Spikerush (Lomandra longifolia).","sortOrder":68},{"sectionNumber":"4.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Historic heritage","content":"## 4.3 Historic heritage\n\nA chronological history of the place (1856-1985) was undertaken by Dr Grace Karskens, \nCatherine Forbes and Brendan Lennard. This history formed part of the 1985 ‘Kirribilli House, Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy’ by Clive Lucas & Partners (Draft Conservation Policy 1985). Many sources held in the National Archives were not available to the researchers at that time. A further detailed research and analysis was undertaken by Dr Rosemary Annable between 2008-2010 as part of a draft CMP prepared by Design 5 Architects. The 2016 HMP by GML Heritage reproduced and updated the research undertaken by Dr Annable.\n\nThe information listed below was included in the draft Design 5 report and Volume 2 of the GML 2016 HMP and is provided in the Appendices to this HMP (see Volume 2 of this HMP) as follows:\n\n Appendix B: Historical Background (includes photographs and plans collated for the draft Design 5 report)\n Appendix C: Australian Prime Ministers since 1901 (extracted from https://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/prime-ministers-since-1901)\n Appendix D: Historical summaries extracted from the Clive Lucas & Partners 1985 Draft Kirribilli House Conservation analysis and Draft Conservation Policy\n Appendix E: Kirribilli House timeline 1794-1957 by Dr Rosemary Annable\n Appendix F: Kirribilli House Owners and Occupants c. 1806-2010 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with a minor update from GML\n Appendix G: Kirribilli House Recent Works 1978-2008 by Dr Rosemary Annable, with information for 2010-2015 provided by the Department of Finance and added by GML, and information for 2015-2023 provided by the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and added by AECOM.\n\nThese appendices provide detailed information on the history and changes to Kirribilli House.","sortOrder":69},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.1 Historical summary of the house","sectionType":"division","heading":"4.3.1 Historical summary of the house","content":"### 4.3.1 Historical summary of the house\n\nThis summary has been collated from various sources. The full text and references appear \nin Appendix B.","sortOrder":70},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.1.1 Phase 1 — 19th Century to 1920 (","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"4.3.1.1 Phase 1 — 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme — the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)","content":"#### 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nKirribilli House and Garden forms part of the early land grant made to convict Samuel Lightfoot in 1794 and Robert Ryan in 1800 (a member of the NSW Corps). The land was sold to Robert Campbell \nin 1806. He saw the area as a useful addition to his ship building business, having direct access \nto water and water views. Campbell leased portions of his land including five acres to Lieutenant Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, Collector of Customs. Gibbes built his house at ‘Carabella’ (Kirribilli Point) and named it ‘Wotonga’ (now Admiralty House). The property was sold still mortgaged \nto James Lindsay Travers in 1851 who sold one acre and 23 Perches of his land at the northeast corner of his estate to fellow merchant Adolph Frederic Feez for £200. Feez was a native of the Kingdom \nof Bavaria. Feez named the property ‘Sophienberg’ and built a house between September 1854 and mid-1857 which became one of the earliest substantial residences of the area.\n\nSophienberg was sold in 1858 to Mrs Esther Hughes, a widow for £3000. The house stayed with the Hughes/Lawry family until 1907. Mrs Hughes’ son, Tom Lawry, who never married, upon his death bequeathed a life tenancy at Kirribilli House to Laura Lamont (Lamotte). She rented the property \nat a nominal rent. Laura married and moved out, and the house was tenanted again from 1915 onwards. Notable tenants include the head gardener of Admiralty House, Michael Minnett. The house was unoccupied for a period and was in a dilapidated state. In 1918, Laura petitioned the Lawry Trust \nto sell Kirribilli House and the sale was ordered by the court.\n\nA W Allen purchased the property 1919, as an investment, offering it up for sale soon after proposing the lot be subdivided into five lots. Photographs of the sale brochure shows the site as a very desirable harbourside property. There was public concern that the site would be cleared for the construction of residential flats, as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that could be used for public purposes. The People’s Open Air Space Movement and other notable individuals including \nSenator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the Mayor of North Sydney approached the government to put the matter before the Federal Government. Dr Mary Booth convened a public meeting and made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister.\n\nDuring this time Admiralty House was offered to the incoming Governor-General as his residence \nin Sydney and there was concern that the construction of flats (at Kirribilli House) directly adjacent \nto the property would erode the amenity and value of Admiralty House. This particular concern led the \nPrime Minister, Sir Joseph Cook to purchase the house for £12,000. When the offer was rejected by the vendor, the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction ‘for defence purposes’.","sortOrder":71},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.1.2 Phase 2 — 1920 to 1956 (Governme","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"4.3.1.2 Phase 2 — 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)","content":"#### 4.3.1.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nIn 1920, the government decided that both Kirribilli House and Admiralty House would be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General and his staff. Alterations and additions were made to the house. \nIn 1930 during the Depression, the Commonwealth government discontinued the use of both houses, and the contents were sold in an auction. From this period Kirribilli House was leased to several tenants until 1953.\n\nIn 1954 the Department of Works reported that the house was in a severe dilapidated state with major damp issues and the grounds was overgrown. The Department gave a costly estimate for extensive repairs. During this time, there was insight that once repaired, the house and grounds would be an enviable property.","sortOrder":72},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.1.3 Phase 3 — 1957 to 2023 (Official","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"4.3.1.3 Phase 3 — 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)","content":"#### 4.3.1.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe architectural firm Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan was engaged to undertake restoration and additions. J C Mansfield, the head designer and supervising architect proposed a plan to allow Kirribilli House to be used as two separate flats or on occasion, as a whole. A service wing and access stair was added. The interior was decorated by Helen Blaxland and Marion Best Pty Ltd. The grounds were also influenced by Mansfield, Professor L D Pryor (the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens) and Professor E G Waterhouse (a notable Sydney scholar and plant breeder). The works to the garden was undertaken by the head gardener of Admiralty House G W Gillham. The planting was to be in three sections: early Australian garden with old-fashioned plants (near house), exotic planting of interest \nto overseas visitors, and local flora at the lower slopes towards the harbour. The house was to be used by the Prime Minister when in Sydney and the remaining accommodation made available to overseas guests of the Commonwealth and staff of the Governor-General. The first official guest of the house was Prime Minister Menzies and Dame Pattie Menzies followed by the Prime Minister of Japan. \nSince then, Kirribilli House has provided accommodation to Australian Prime Ministers including \nHarold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, \nPaul Keating, John Howard, and subsequent Prime Ministers. During this time only minor alterations were undertaken which were mostly to the interior.\n\nIn 1985, extensive analysis and research was undertaken by Clive Lucas and Partners for restoring Kirribilli House. The recommendation was to restore the house to its 1880s configuration and layout, \nit being the date of most significance to the architectural history of the site. The works were undertaken in a staged approach. David Spode also undertook works to the interior to align with the 1880s style set-out in the conservation principles. In 1986, as part of the extensive research work that was undertaken for the site, Grace Karskens identified that the Kirribilli House stone harbourside swimming pool (a part of its jetty and boat sheds complex) as probably the oldest bathing pool on Sydney Harbour (Karskens, 1987) (see Volume 2, Appendix N). By 2023, only minor modifications to the interior of the building have occurred.\n\nWhen John Howard was elected in 1996, he was the first Prime Minister to make Kirribilli an official home since 1953. During this time, the 1880s staircase was to be relocated to its original location in the main hall. Subsequent Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard occupied The Lodge and used Kirribilli House only as the residence when in Sydney. In 2013 Tony Abbott made Kirribilli House his residence. Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 replaced Tony Abbott and resided at The Lodge. In 2018 \nScott Morrison was elected and made Kirribilli House his primary residence. In 2022 Anthony Albanese became the new Prime Minister and primarily resides at The Lodge using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.","sortOrder":73},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden","sectionType":"division","heading":"4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden","content":"### 4.3.2 Historical summary of the garden\n\nThe following text has been summarised from the 2010 HMP (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H, Landscape report by G. Britton).","sortOrder":74},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.2.1 Phase 1 — 19th Century to 1920 (","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"4.3.2.1 Phase 1 — 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme — the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)","content":"#### 4.3.2.1 Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Historic theme – the Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment)\n\nThe site was developed from the 19th Century with the levelling and smoothing of the landscape contours. The site was benched and banked during the construction of the house and later from the house modifications. The northeast lawn and elevated area to the west of the house is likely to reveal early development of the land by way of archaeological resources (former stabling structures and outbuildings). Remnants of the 19th Century layout is still evident in the following areas:\n\n- the main gated entry (sandstone walling and gate piers that have been retained but in a different alignment)\n- the traditional approach to the house from Kirribilli Avenue\n- the access alignment from the eastern grounds down to the marine precinct\n- a seat cut into the rock outcrop east of the house (possibly, the rebate cut into another outcrop for \n a former sundial as well as other steps between outcropping)\n- a sandstone paving block with a directional compass (cardinal points only) carved into it at the northeast corner of the house\n- the general arrangement of grassed areas across the site to the northeast, east and south of the house defined and enclosed by blocks of vegetation\n- the concept of a steep, grassy bank (though not its current terraced form) cascading down from the house\n- a garden walk (with steps) within the pleasure grounds.\n\nPlantings from this period include two Bull Bays (Magnolia grandiflora) behind the house, large Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) at Kirribilli Avenue, large clumping plants Strelitzia nicolai (near the southern boundary and northern boundary) and Phoenix reclinata (near the path to the marine precinct), and the solitary Firewheel Tree (Stenocarpus sinuatus) at the northern boundary fence.\n\nRemoved plants from this period include the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora) at Kirribilli Avenue, the flame tree (Brachychiton acerifolium) formerly within the front drive loop, another camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) formerly near the northern boundary, and the kauri pine (Agathis robusta) formerly near the northeast corner of the house.\n\nA hallmark of the historical grounds is the rich nature of the gardens through use of a variety of foliage plants and strategic placement to provide shade, shelter and screening. Only glimpses of these remain in the current garden. The grounds offered vistas (e.g., from the front entry), filtered views and glimpses of the harbour through foliage, and broad panoramas. Other remains from this era include the enduring relationship with Admiralty House, which is both rare and remarkable as the two major marine estates remain virtually intact. They are both appreciated together from the harbour and regarded as an integral part of the iconic harbourside scenery.\n\nKirribilli House and Admiralty House form part of a collection of 19th Century estates in the area including Sunnyside (1862), Burnleigh (c1875), Newton (1870) and the Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre building (1873). Together they also contributed to the historic streetscape of Kirribilli Avenue.","sortOrder":75},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.2.2 Phase 2 — 1920 to 1956 (Governme","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"4.3.2.2 Phase 2 — 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)","content":"#### 4.3.2.2 Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption)\n\nAfter Kirribilli House was acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1920, several changes within the grounds occurred. The current garage was built by 1930 replacing the former outbuildings to the west of the house. As the house was tenanted (between 1920 and 1940) it is possible that the present Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and the nearby Jelly palm (Butia capitata) were introduced, along with the Himalayan cedar (Cedrus deodara). It is possible other trees may date to this general period including the Hill’s fig tree which could be planted, or bird propagated. Alternatively, this tree was introduced as part of the 1957 grounds makeover.\n\nCorrespondence (1957) from Professor L D Pryor (Director of ACT Parks and Gardens (who assisted \nin the landscape design of Kirribilli) records the existence of a Lilli Pilli (possibly remains), Kauri pine (removed), the Flame tree (removed), Lemon-scented gum (removed) and Ginkgo biloba (removed). Much of these trees would have originated before 1920. However, the Lilli Pilli was introduced after 1920. Pryor is known to have designed the landscape of the ACT and establishing the future herbarium in Canberra.\n\nCorrespondence from Charles Weston (head of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra in 1922) indicates that he was directly selecting and sending the plant species to Kirribilli at that time. Weston was familiar with the garden’s requirements as he had been the head gardener at Admiralty House for 10 years, living on site in the gardener’s cottage before moving across the harbour to work at Government House for another four years.","sortOrder":76},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.2.3 Phase 3 — 1957 to 2023 (Official","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"4.3.2.3 Phase 3 — 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)","content":"#### 4.3.2.3 Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister)\n\nThe layout of the northern and western areas of the garden dates from the 1957 modifications. \nThe driveway and drive loop were added. Banking continued across the site, steps were added and the earlier dramatic bank was terraced from fill from the work of the north and west areas. A new flight \nof steps was added in the 1970s to the southern end of the central rock formation. The pattern \nof adding flights of steps at various places with no connecting pathways created more problems in the garden. This pattern has eroded the sense of ‘wildness’ and drama of the earlier picturesque character of the garden.\n\nIn 1957, Professor EG Waterhouse provided advice for the grounds. Waterhouse was a linguist, \nand horticulturist and camellia expert. It is assumed that the older camellias within the grounds, including those below the central rock outcrop and the large Camellia reticulata at the southern boundary are attributed to his work.\n\nThe large Hill’s fig tree may have originated between the interwar period to 1950s or propagated by birds during this time span. Smooth-barked apples lined the main driveway in the 1960s and 1970s (removed by 1986). The smooth-barked apple is a species that is otherwise highly desirable to have on site. The Macadamia and Backhousia (c1960s) is likely to be the influenced by Bettina Gorton \n(resident 1968 to 1971) as she was an advocate of Australian flora providing the momentum for the well-known Native Garden at The Lodge. The Ficus pumila hedge along the central rock outcrop \nis likely to originate from the 1980s recommendations and has become invasive. The recent addition \nof the Kentia palms (Howea forsteriana) and Jacaranda (as a replacement of the flame tree) are in keeping with the Victorian character. In the 1960s there was an unnecessary displacement of stonework to the harbourside structures. There is walling that originates from the 1960s as ‘fieldstone’.\n\nAECOM Note: There are conflicting opinions from Britton and Taylor Brammer on appropriateness \nof Jacaranda tree and camellias.\n\nThere is generally a demise of several older trees (e.g., large Camphor laurel, old Flame tree and large Lemon-scented gum). A solid and continuous line of trees on the northern boundary appears \n(a key feature of early 20th Century) has lost the density.\n\nIn 2010, the garden has improved from the 1980s austere character to have denser plantings and there is a prevalence for neatness than a rich mixture of plant species consistent with a Victorian harbourside mansion. There is a lack of defining major precincts such as the important approach sequence or the eastern cliff line where earlier exotics and locally indigenous vegetation are vying with environmental weeds or the use of lighting elements and furniture (e.g., the inappropriate kidney-shaped stone seat). Harbourside structure remain as a ruin.","sortOrder":77},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.3 Timeline of events","sectionType":"division","heading":"4.3.3 Timeline of events","content":"### 4.3.3 Timeline of events\n\nThe following chronology draws from the historical background prepared in the Clive Lucas & Partners report and updated in the draft Design 5 report. This is provided in full at Appendix B, Volume 2 to this HMP. All sources of information detailed in the chronology below are listed in Appendix B, Volume 2 unless otherwise noted.\n\nTable 4‑1: Site chronology\n\n| Year | Event |\n| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Pre-European settlement – today | Aboriginal people have always lived in Sydney. There are about 29 clan groups of the Sydney metropolitan area. |\n| 1794 | Small grant of land made on the area that later became known as the North Shore to Samuel Lightfoot. |\n| 1800 | 120 acres granted to Robert Ryan. |\n| 1806 | Ryan’s land purchased by Robert Campbell. |\n| 1810s-1830s | James Milsom was Campbell’s first tenant and ran a small farm as the main occupant of the area. |\n| 1842 | Campbell leased five acres to Lt Col Gibbes for 21 years. Gibbes built ‘Wotonga’ which later became Admiralty House. |\n| 1846 | Robert Campbell died, with his estate inherited by his sons including John and Robert. |\n| 1849 | Gibbes purchased the land from the Union Bank of Australia, which had control of the property as security for bills of exchange held by the Campbell family. |\n| 1851 | Gibbes sold the property to James Lindsay Travers. |\n| 1854 | Travers sold the northeast portion of the property to Adolph Feez. |\n| 1854-1857 | Built elements: Feez built a house at some stage during this period on the portion purchased from Travers, which Feez had called ‘Sophienberg’. Records indicate that there was fencing, a jetty and other structures on the waterfront but no buildings. Construction of the building may not have started until after June 1856. |\n| 1858 | Feez sold the property to Ms Esther Hughes for £3,000, which by this time included the house and jetty. |\n| 1860s | Built elements: Entry porch added (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1858-1908 | The property was held in trust for Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes (daughter of Ms Esther Hughes) and her children, later becoming their family home. The house became known as ‘Kirribilli House’ during this period. |\n| 1878-1879 | Ancillary buildings were erected on the land to the north of the house that Thomas Lawry purchased in 1870. |\n| 1883-1884 | Built elements: A change in the assessed value of the house suggests that substantial additions were made to the house.1880s – House extended to the west (addition of Green Room and Dining Room(Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1891 | A survey of the property shows three substantial structures on the land (outbuildings),two close to the entrance to the property, directly opposite the entrance to Kirribilli House.Built elements: Various rate books describe the house having 13 or 14 rooms. |\n| 1901 | Following the death of James and Esther, the children, Tom, and Ester divide the property. Tom took inherits the house and Esther the land on the north side of Campbell Street. |\n| 1900-1902 | Photographs shows the house and possibly its occupant, Tom Lawry with member of his household. |\n| 1907 | Last residential descendent of Esther Matilda Hosking Hughes, Tom Lawry, passed away, leaving the estate to beneficiary, Miss Laura Lamont. |\n| 1909 | Ms Lamont married William McCrea. |\n| 1910 | Built elements: Internal modifications (Design 5, 2010: Plans). |\n| 1913 | Mr and Mrs McCrea moved away from the property and the contents of the house were auctioned (presumably by the Trustees). The house was then tenanted, most likely on short-term leases.An album of photographs exists of both interior and exterior views of the house assumedto have been taken for the auction survive. |\n| 1915-c.1918 | House was occupied by Arthur Pittar, dentist followed by Michael Minnett, head gardenerat Admiralty House. |\n| 1919 | Mrs McCrea sold the property to A W Allen for £10,000. The property was advertised as having an unequalled position on the harbour front for “…a site for a large residence, for flats, or public buildings, or would subdivide to advantage”.Built elements: The house is noted to be in a very dilapidated state and had been unoccupied. |\n\n \n\n| 1920 | Allen bought the estate as an investment and offered the site for sale six month later, subdivided into five lots. There was public concern that the house was to be replacedby residential flats and as it was the only remaining piece of waterfront land that couldbe useful for public purposes.This sale caused objection from the People’s Open Air Space Movement including Senator Pratten, Dr Mary Booth, Mr Sydney Smith, and the mayor of North Sydney, which led to a direct appeal to the prime minister. Partially due to its proximity to Admiralty House, which was offered to the Governor-General, the federal government offered to purchase the property for its agreed value of £12,000. The government’s point of view was that the amenity and value of Admiralty House would be seriously eroded by the construction of flats close by. The offer was rejected by Allen.On the day of the auction the house and land were resumed by the Commonwealth on the day of the auction for defence purposes. |\n| ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1920-1930 | Built elements: Repairs to the house was made. Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as accommodation for the Governor-General’s staff. Changes during this period included small additions to the house in the west end (1921) bringing the services areas indoors. On the ground floor an office was provided for the aides-de -camp, conservatory, and a servant’s hall with bedrooms for the staff upstairs at the west end of the house. The house was connected to the sewerage system. The exterior was painted whiteto conceal the differences in existing stonework and new brick addition.Trees were provided by the Afforestation Branch in Canberra whilst the grounds were cared for by the Head Gardener of Admiralty House, Mr Minnett.Two boathouses on the foreshore and the canopy over the bating area were dilapidated and the bathing area, jetty and retaining wall were in reasonable repair but disused. |\n| 1930-1935 | As part of the austerity measures arising from the Great Depression, the government discontinued use of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House by the Governor-General, and leased Kirribilli House. The house contents were auctioned in November 1930. Later in the year, the houses were leased to Captain Lundgren and then to Alfred House in 1935. |\n| 1936 | Admiralty House was made available for the incoming Governor-General, but this excluded Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House was renovated and leased to George Henry Deaton for seven years for £6 a week.Built elements: Improvements prior to leasing included the installation of a hot water system, modernising one of the bathrooms and the installation of a gas stove. |\n| 1942 | Built elements: The grounds were neglected, and damp was an issue in the house.The cellar was full of water and expensive wallpaper was damaged.Mr Deaton was not keen to vacate the property and finally did so in February 1942.The property was used for a month by the military and then remained vacant until October 1943. |\n| 1943 | Mr Deaton transferred the lease to Commander Karl Erik Oom, Naval Officer,and Hydrographer. |\n| 1953 | Commander Oom was invalided from the Navy and vacated the property. |\n| 1953-1955 | Kirribilli House was reserved for use as temporary accommodation for the staff of the Governor-General.In 1954, J H Scholtens, Hospitality Officer of the Prime Minister’s Department inspected the House and reported that the grounds were shockingly neglected, and the house lackeda damp course, was damp, with dry rot, and lacked general maintenance deserving destruction. He also suggested that with appropriate repairs the house would be enviousto other officials. |\n| 1955-1956 | Built elements: Plans were developed for the rehabilitation of Kirribilli House by designers and architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan. This work included comprehensive redecoration as well as extensive renovations and additions.J C Mansfield the supervising architect, designed a scheme to allow the house to be used as either two separate flats or on special occasions, as a whole. The stair was relocated, a new service wing with kitchen, pantry and staff quarter added in the same style as the original building was built. One apartment was to be used by overseas guests of the Commonwealth and the other by the Prime Minister when in Sydney. |\n| 1957 | Prime Minister the Hon. Robert Menzies approved the future use of the property for special occasions and official purposes.Built elements: Mansfield’s design was implemented between March and October 1957. Towards completion, the property was placed under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. The garden was planted in three sections, an early Australian garden near the house, exotics of interest to overseas visitors, and local flora on the lower slopes near the harbour. Professor L D Pryor, the Director of ACT Parks and Gardens advised on the plantings. |\n| 1957-1977 | Built elements: Staffroom and extension to Kitchen undertaken. Interior was continuallyre-decorated by Prime Ministers’ wives including changes in wallpaper. |\n| 1979 | The Official Establishments Trust (OET) was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1979, as a permanent and independent advisory body for managing the operation and conservation of all four official residences of the Commonwealth providing for the first timea unified approach. |\n| 1980-1981 | Built elements: Refurbishment and redecoration of the main bedroom and the official reception areas of the ground floor were undertaken under the direction of the OET.A décor in harmony with the historical significance of Kirribilli House was to be adopted.The Department of Housing began a long-term plan of restoration. |\n| 1985 | Built elements: Rising damp was identified as a major problem. Extensive research and analysis of the property was undertaken by Clive Lucas & Partners, which recommended reconstruction and restoration works including that the front of the house be returned to its 1880s (the most significant period in the architectural history) configuration and layout.The work was accepted by the OET. |\n| 1986-1988 | Built elements: Restoration and reconstruction works were undertaken in a staged approach. This included roof repairs, re-slating the roof, installation of a damp proof course and improved external drainage. David Spode, interior designer was commissionedto prepare designs consistent with the 1880s style and conservation philosophy. |\n| 1996-2007 | Built elements: Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard used Kirribilli House as a family residence. During this period the relocation of the 1880s staircase within the main hall was undertaken (recommended in the Clive Lucas report). Elements that had provided the separate flats in the 1950s were also removed to enable the function of the house as a single residence. The pool and adjacent boat dock was also abandoned and preserved only as ruins as any ‘residual heritage value’ had been irreversibly diminished from works undertaken in 1968 and there was no future prospect of the facilities being used in the future. |\n| 2007-2013 | Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd announced that the Lodge would be used as the official residence of the Prime Minister. It was announced that Kirribilli House would be made available to ten registered charities a year for fund raising. This policy was a departure from the place being used as ‘special occasion’ role and continued this role when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in 2013. |\n| 2013-2015 | Kirribilli House was used by Tony Abbott and his family while work on The Lodge was being undertaken. |\n| 2015 | When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, he confirmed that The Lodge would be his residence and Kirribilli House was to be used for official purposes of the office of the Prime Minister. |\n| 2018-2022 | Prime Minister, Scott Morrison used Kirribilli House as his primary place of residence. |\n| 2022-present | Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese uses The Lodge as his primary place of residence, using Kirribilli House when in Sydney and for Official Visits.Built Elements:Remediation required to seawall, existing retaining walls and pathways across the grounds. This project which is currently underway will remove hazards, stabilise areas at risk of landslide and collapse. Future iterations of this HMP will be updated to reflect any changes to the built elements of this project. |","sortOrder":78},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.4 Key Historical photographs","sectionType":"division","heading":"4.3.4 Key Historical photographs","content":"### 4.3.4 Key Historical photographs\n\nThe following historical photographs demonstrate the development of the house from 1890s to 2023.\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.092.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑1: 1890s SPF image showing Kirribilli House, thick vegetation in gardens and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n![A black and white image from the harbour looking at Kirribilli House, surrounded by large trees and vegetation. ](image.093.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑2: 1890s SPF image showing detail of terraced gardens, manicured hedges, and harbour structures (Source: Mitchell Library)\n\n| Figure 4‑3: c.1920 Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, showing Kirribilli House and garden including plantings (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) | Figure 4‑4: Detail of Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure, c. 1920 showing the bathing pool, stone walls, boat harbour and timber shelter and boatshed (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd – 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A black and white aerial shot image of Kirribilli and Admiralty house grounds and Kirribilli Point surrounded by a body of water from the Harbour](image.096.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑5: c.1921, Detail of photograph of the Pastoral Finance Association Building (to the left of Admiralty House out of frame) on Kirribilli Point, taken by Milton Kent showing Kirribilli House, garden and harbourside structures (Source: State Library of NSW, ON 447/Box 123\n\n![A black and white image of trees and bushes from the grounds of Kirribilli House in the 1920's ](image.097.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑6: 1920s View from the Estate Richardson & Wrench Sales Brochure showing panoramic views (Kirribilli House Subdivision: Richardson & Wrench Ltd –Saturday 17 January 1920 at 3.30 pm)\n\n| Figure 4‑7: 1943 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House prior to western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑8: 1965 Photographic aerial showing Kirribilli House after western extension (spatial.nsw.gov.au) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 4‑9: 2005 Photographic aerial (spatial.nsw.gov.au) | Figure 4‑10: 2023 Photographic aerial showing loss of tree canopy to northern boundary (maps.six.nsw.gov.au) |","sortOrder":79},{"sectionNumber":"4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans","sectionType":"division","heading":"4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans","content":"### 4.3.5 Kirribilli House Evolution Plans\n\nThe floor plans and elevations provided in Volume 3 and below figures demonstrate the evolution \nof changes to the building since its construction in the mid-19th century. The evolution of the grounds \nis shown in Figure 4‑15Figure 4-15-Figure 4-20.\n\nFigure 4‑11: Ground floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 4‑12: First floor plan evolution – Refer to Volume 3","sortOrder":80},{"sectionNumber":"4.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Archaeological potential","content":"## 4.4 Archaeological potential\n\nTo date, only two known archaeological assessments have been undertaken at Kirribilli House. In 1987, Edward Higginbotham conducted an archaeological inspection of the subfloor space of Kirribilli House ahead of proposed alterations to the flooring. As floorboards were to be removed, the opportunity was taken to inspect the subfloor area of the hallway and augment the historical information presented in the 1985 Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy by Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners \n(Figure 4‑21).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor. ](image.110.png)\n\nFigure 4‑21: General view of hallway following floorboard removal, looking east. The former cellar structure is at left of frame (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nAfter the floorboards in the hallway had been removed, Higginbotham noted the footings of a partition wall visible in the western end of the hallway. The partition wall was constructed of dry-pressed bricks and cement mortar, consistent with the 1921 dating in historical documents (Figure 4‑22).\n\n![A close up, black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards](image.111.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑22: Footings of a dry-pressed partition wall at the western end of the hallway (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nThe removal of this wall exposed a timber-framed construction and lath and plaster wall. This wall \nis consistent with the 1957 alterations (Higginbotham, 1987:2).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling from beneath the walls.](image.112.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑23: View of cellar, looking northwest. Original joists are at far left and right, with newer (narrower) joists over the cellar (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:7)\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor.](image.113.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑24: Entrance hallway, looking north. Original joists in foreground with cellar at extreme left (Source: (Higginbotham, 1987:8)\n\nIn relation to the cellar and the room above (now the entry powder room), the subfloor space also showed that the cellar had been partially infilled. On this fill were dry-pressed brick piers, bonded with cement mortar, ostensibly to support the wall between the hall and the entry powder room. This wall was constructed with cinder blocks and cement mortar. Although the room was converted to a powder room in 1921, the cinder block wall evidences the extensive alterations of 1957 (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nOf the archaeological evidence within the cellar, Higginbotham also notes:\n\nThe configuration of this room… indicates that the original front wall of the house has been removed in the cellar and room above and a dry-pressed brick wall, bonded with cement mortar, constructed in front of it. A concrete joist or beam supports the original front wall above the ground floor room. The floor over the cellar is a concrete slab.\n\n(Higginbotham, 1987:3)\n\nAfter inspecting the entrance hallway, Higginbotham noted the presence of the original joists, \nbut no evidence of the original staircase. He notes that the reconfiguration of the cellar and the room above likely removed any such evidence, however opined that the cellar was probably reached by steps beneath the original staircase. Based on the available physical evidence, he therefore concluded that the only logical location for the original staircase was the room above the cellar (Figure 4‑24) (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nNo artefactual material was noted in the subfloor space, apart from some building debris, including sandstone chips. However, Higginbotham notes that should underfloor deposits be removed at any time in the future, these deposits will have to be examined further to determine the presence of artefactual material (Higginbotham, 1987:4). This removal and examination should be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the archaeological potential of the grounds, an archaeological assessment was undertaken in 2010 by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd as part of Design 5’s draft HMP and was included \nas Appendix J in GML’s 2016 HMP (now included in Appendix L). That assessment has been reviewed as part of this report.\n\nAs indicated in the historical context, the land now comprising Kirribilli House was once part of what was once called “Wotonga” and is now known as Admiralty House (see Section 4.3.1.1 above and Appendix B, Volume 2). A review of historical plans shows no structures from this phase of the site’s history located within the study area.\n\nA review of early maps and plans shows few other structures outside of the house that still survive. \nA map from 1892 show the following features (Figure 4‑25):\n\n An underground tank or reservoir in the lawns/gardens northeast of the house\n Outbuildings to the west of the main house\n Bathing pavilion and boat house on the harbour’s edge to the east of the main house.\n\n![A picture of a Kirribilli House map drawing, outlining the residences outbuildings, tank and bathing pavilion and boat house ](image.114.png)\n\nFigure 4‑25: Detail of Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board map from 1892 showing features surrounding Kirribilli House (Source: Stanton Library, LH REF MF 299/1, Image #MF2990001)\n\nThe outbuildings are likely beneath the western extensions to the main house constructed in 1957. Given the covered walkway from the western elevation of the house to the outbuildings, they were likely buildings that were frequently used, such as an external kitchen, servant’s quarters, and washhouse. Historical sources indicate that from 1878-1879, stables and gardens were located on a separate block opposite Kirribilli House to the north, on land purchased by Lawry family.\n\nThe sea pool and jetty were constructed as part of the original house, c.1856 (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986:44). These are now in ruins along the shore of the harbour.\n\nThe rectangular tank, interpreted by Casey and Lowe as either an underground tank or fishpond, \nis no longer in the landscape. Archival photographs show a greenhouse in the approximate location \nof the “tank”; however, based on a review of archival plans, this feature appears to be a later structure, possibly dating from the 1950s/1960s (Figure 4‑26).\n\n![A picture of where the previous green house was located on the Kirribilli House grounds. ](image.115.png)\n\nFigure 4‑26: Greenhouse/summer house northeast of main house, undated (Source: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet)","sortOrder":81},{"sectionNumber":"4.4.1 Management of Unexpected Finds","sectionType":"division","heading":"4.4.1 Management of Unexpected Finds","content":"### 4.4.1 Management of Unexpected Finds\n\nThis process chiefly applies to archaeological deposits. However, the process also applies \nto unexpected finds of built heritage elements uncovered during renovations or other works across the site, such as original ceilings, flooring, walls, fireplaces, hearths and similar.\n\nIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, the following procedure must be followed Figure 4‑27.Figure 4‑27\n\n![A picture of a flow chart outlining the process for managing unexpected items. ](image.116.png)\n\nFigure 4‑27: Unexpected finds procedure","sortOrder":82},{"sectionNumber":"4.4.2 Summary of Archaeological Potentia","sectionType":"division","heading":"4.4.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential","content":"### 4.4.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential\n\nBased on his inspection of the subfloor space, Higginbotham recommended that:\n\n The underfloor deposits should be sampled or excavated archaeologically if they are to be removed or extensively disturbed\n The cellar should be more thoroughly inspected for evidence of its original access in the event of the concrete slab floor being removed (either wholly or partially).\n\nIt is understood that neither of these recommendations have yet been required to be activated. Accordingly, they should remain as general recommendations to protect archaeological deposits beneath Kirribilli House.\n\nThe 2010 archaeological assessment concluded that the subfloor areas of Kirribilli House have the potential to retain structural evidence relating to the building’s original layout. It also notes the limited potential for subfloor deposits (Casey & Lowe, 2010:17). As with Higginbotham, Casey & Lowe recommended that any works to the subfloor should be guided by archaeological investigations \nby a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the grounds, Casey & Lowe concluded that archaeological potential was restricted to the “tank” feature and any brick cistern (a common feature on houses of that time) that may have been attached to the original house. It was recommended further that any ground disturbance works in the vicinity of the tank structure at the north-east of the house should also be guided by archaeological investigations by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nThe current assessment identifies that there is potential for archaeology in the western area of the site relating to the former outbuildings. There is potential for maritime archaeology of the seabed is likely which would require further assessments. It is to be noted that the foreshore land is owned by Transport for NSW and may require permission for any future investigation.\n\nAdditionally, sandstone outcrops covered by the garden could contain Indigenous archaeology such \nas engravings and grinding grooves and there may be modifications on the foreshore.","sortOrder":83},{"sectionNumber":"5.0","sectionType":"part","heading":"Significance assessment","content":"## 4.4 Archaeological potential\n\nTo date, only two known archaeological assessments have been undertaken at Kirribilli House. In 1987, Edward Higginbotham conducted an archaeological inspection of the subfloor space of Kirribilli House ahead of proposed alterations to the flooring. As floorboards were to be removed, the opportunity was taken to inspect the subfloor area of the hallway and augment the historical information presented in the 1985 Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy by Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners \n(Figure 4‑21).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor. ](image.110.png)\n\nFigure 4‑21: General view of hallway following floorboard removal, looking east. The former cellar structure is at left of frame (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nAfter the floorboards in the hallway had been removed, Higginbotham noted the footings of a partition wall visible in the western end of the hallway. The partition wall was constructed of dry-pressed bricks and cement mortar, consistent with the 1921 dating in historical documents (Figure 4‑22).\n\n![A close up, black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards](image.111.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑22: Footings of a dry-pressed partition wall at the western end of the hallway (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nThe removal of this wall exposed a timber-framed construction and lath and plaster wall. This wall \nis consistent with the 1957 alterations (Higginbotham, 1987:2).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling from beneath the walls.](image.112.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑23: View of cellar, looking northwest. Original joists are at far left and right, with newer (narrower) joists over the cellar (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:7)\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor.](image.113.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑24: Entrance hallway, looking north. Original joists in foreground with cellar at extreme left (Source: (Higginbotham, 1987:8)\n\nIn relation to the cellar and the room above (now the entry powder room), the subfloor space also showed that the cellar had been partially infilled. On this fill were dry-pressed brick piers, bonded with cement mortar, ostensibly to support the wall between the hall and the entry powder room. This wall was constructed with cinder blocks and cement mortar. Although the room was converted to a powder room in 1921, the cinder block wall evidences the extensive alterations of 1957 (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nOf the archaeological evidence within the cellar, Higginbotham also notes:\n\nThe configuration of this room… indicates that the original front wall of the house has been removed in the cellar and room above and a dry-pressed brick wall, bonded with cement mortar, constructed in front of it. A concrete joist or beam supports the original front wall above the ground floor room. The floor over the cellar is a concrete slab.\n\n(Higginbotham, 1987:3)\n\nAfter inspecting the entrance hallway, Higginbotham noted the presence of the original joists, \nbut no evidence of the original staircase. He notes that the reconfiguration of the cellar and the room above likely removed any such evidence, however opined that the cellar was probably reached by steps beneath the original staircase. Based on the available physical evidence, he therefore concluded that the only logical location for the original staircase was the room above the cellar (Figure 4‑24) (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nNo artefactual material was noted in the subfloor space, apart from some building debris, including sandstone chips. However, Higginbotham notes that should underfloor deposits be removed at any time in the future, these deposits will have to be examined further to determine the presence of artefactual material (Higginbotham, 1987:4). This removal and examination should be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the archaeological potential of the grounds, an archaeological assessment was undertaken in 2010 by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd as part of Design 5’s draft HMP and was included \nas Appendix J in GML’s 2016 HMP (now included in Appendix L). That assessment has been reviewed as part of this report.\n\nAs indicated in the historical context, the land now comprising Kirribilli House was once part of what was once called “Wotonga” and is now known as Admiralty House (see Section 4.3.1.1 above and Appendix B, Volume 2). A review of historical plans shows no structures from this phase of the site’s history located within the study area.\n\nA review of early maps and plans shows few other structures outside of the house that still survive. \nA map from 1892 show the following features (Figure 4‑25):\n\n An underground tank or reservoir in the lawns/gardens northeast of the house\n Outbuildings to the west of the main house\n Bathing pavilion and boat house on the harbour’s edge to the east of the main house.\n\n![A picture of a Kirribilli House map drawing, outlining the residences outbuildings, tank and bathing pavilion and boat house ](image.114.png)\n\nFigure 4‑25: Detail of Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board map from 1892 showing features surrounding Kirribilli House (Source: Stanton Library, LH REF MF 299/1, Image #MF2990001)\n\nThe outbuildings are likely beneath the western extensions to the main house constructed in 1957. Given the covered walkway from the western elevation of the house to the outbuildings, they were likely buildings that were frequently used, such as an external kitchen, servant’s quarters, and washhouse. Historical sources indicate that from 1878-1879, stables and gardens were located on a separate block opposite Kirribilli House to the north, on land purchased by Lawry family.\n\nThe sea pool and jetty were constructed as part of the original house, c.1856 (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986:44). These are now in ruins along the shore of the harbour.\n\nThe rectangular tank, interpreted by Casey and Lowe as either an underground tank or fishpond, \nis no longer in the landscape. Archival photographs show a greenhouse in the approximate location \nof the “tank”; however, based on a review of archival plans, this feature appears to be a later structure, possibly dating from the 1950s/1960s (Figure 4‑26).\n\n![A picture of where the previous green house was located on the Kirribilli House grounds. ](image.115.png)\n\nFigure 4‑26: Greenhouse/summer house northeast of main house, undated (Source: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet)\n\n### 4.4.1 Management of Unexpected Finds\n\nThis process chiefly applies to archaeological deposits. However, the process also applies \nto unexpected finds of built heritage elements uncovered during renovations or other works across the site, such as original ceilings, flooring, walls, fireplaces, hearths and similar.\n\nIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, the following procedure must be followed Figure 4‑27.Figure 4‑27\n\n![A picture of a flow chart outlining the process for managing unexpected items. ](image.116.png)\n\nFigure 4‑27: Unexpected finds procedure\n\n \n\n### 4.4.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential\n\nBased on his inspection of the subfloor space, Higginbotham recommended that:\n\n The underfloor deposits should be sampled or excavated archaeologically if they are to be removed or extensively disturbed\n The cellar should be more thoroughly inspected for evidence of its original access in the event of the concrete slab floor being removed (either wholly or partially).\n\nIt is understood that neither of these recommendations have yet been required to be activated. Accordingly, they should remain as general recommendations to protect archaeological deposits beneath Kirribilli House.\n\nThe 2010 archaeological assessment concluded that the subfloor areas of Kirribilli House have the potential to retain structural evidence relating to the building’s original layout. It also notes the limited potential for subfloor deposits (Casey & Lowe, 2010:17). As with Higginbotham, Casey & Lowe recommended that any works to the subfloor should be guided by archaeological investigations \nby a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the grounds, Casey & Lowe concluded that archaeological potential was restricted to the “tank” feature and any brick cistern (a common feature on houses of that time) that may have been attached to the original house. It was recommended further that any ground disturbance works in the vicinity of the tank structure at the north-east of the house should also be guided by archaeological investigations by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nThe current assessment identifies that there is potential for archaeology in the western area of the site relating to the former outbuildings. There is potential for maritime archaeology of the seabed is likely which would require further assessments. It is to be noted that the foreshore land is owned by Transport for NSW and may require permission for any future investigation.\n\nAdditionally, sandstone outcrops covered by the garden could contain Indigenous archaeology such \nas engravings and grinding grooves and there may be modifications on the foreshore.\n\n \n\n# 5.0 Significance assessment\n\n## 5.1 Natural Heritage Assessment\n\n### 5.1.1 Discussion\n\nThe land on which Kirribilli House and garden sits has been substantially modified and a significant amount of native vegetation has been removed. This process was initiated with the construction \nof Kirribilli House in 1856 and (refer to Appendix A) extended by subsequent owners and tenants, particularly with the ground modifications in 1957. The dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site is a vestige of the pre-European Landscape.\n\nThe current garden has large area of lawn and a mixture of native and exotic plants. There is only some native, remnant vegetation and the area is not known to have high-quality habitat for fauna. Kirribilli House therefore does not meet the natural heritage criteria under the EPBC Act. It is important to note that Kirribilli Point is part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape and has values associated with that significance.\n\nThe surviving local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remains in along Kirribilli Avenue and the eastern corner of the site. Other surviving species include the Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) and sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum).\n\n## 5.2 Indigenous Heritage Assessment\n\nPrevious investigations have identified a low potential for Indigenous sites to be present within the bounds of Kirribilli House and Gardens. This is due to the fact that the construction of the house required excavation into bedrock and the subsequent landscaping and vegetation modification would have removed or disturbed the skeletal soils and Indigenous vegetation that was previously at this location. However, the site inspection undertaken for the HMP and consultation with Indigenous representatives identified that there is potential for the sandstone outcrops currently covered by the landscaped garden to contain cultural modifications, such as grinding grooves and engravings, if any were made in this area in the past. The presence or absence could only be determined by investigation should these outcrops be exposed during future works. Similarly, evidence of past cultural modification could be present in the foreshore area at the base of the escarpment by the water, which would also require further investigation to determine presence or absence. Finally, it was also noted that in addition to the possibility of extant tangible values in the form of sites, which may or may not be present, \nthe location is part of a larger cultural landscape that still holds intangible cultural values.\n\n## 5.3 Heritage Context\n\n### 5.3.1 Preamble\n\nThe CHL listing separately lists Kirribilli House and Garden. It is AECOM’s view that the listing originates from a historical practice and the site would benefit from one heritage listing in future. \nSections 5.3.2-5.3.3 have been extracted from the Commonwealth Heritage List entries for ‘Kirribilli House’ and ‘Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds.’[\\[1\\]](#_ftn1)\n\n### 5.3.2 Kirribilli House\n\n#### 5.3.2.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1920 to protect harbourside open space from development. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries. (Criterion H. 1)\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values. (Criterion D.2)\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting. (Criterion B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the (separately nominated) redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. (Criterion E.1)\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.2.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Ministers when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1\\`920 to protect harbourside open space from development.\n\n##### 5.3.2.2.1 Attributes\n\nThe fabric and form of the house.\n\n#### 5.3.2.3 Criterion B – Rarity\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting.\n\n##### 5.3.2.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.4 Criterion D – Characteristic Values\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values.\n\n##### 5.3.2.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe building’s form, its external styling and details and its early and original fabric.\n\n#### 5.3.2.5 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have an harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site\n\n##### 5.3.2.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.6 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.2.6.1 Attributes\n\nThe house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days\n\n#### 5.3.2.7 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries.\n\n##### 5.3.2.7.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole of the building, both internally and externally.\n\n#### 5.3.2.8 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds. The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.2.9 Description\n\nKirribilli House is a Victorian Rustic Gothic style single storey house with attics, set amongst gardens and grassed areas sloping down to the northern side of Sydney Harbour. It is a fairly rare example of this style of house still retaining its harbourside setting. Steeply pitched slate gabled roofs with traceried bargeboards are a feature and are a key characteristic of the style. Single storey verandahs are on the eastern and southern sides of the building. There is a castellated bay window, and an entrance porch with a top light. Chimneys are tall and have twin terracotta pots. Walling is stone, which is painted and in some places is rendered in ashlar imitation; there is also some painted brick walling. There is a flat-roofed section to the house. Windows are multi-pane and there are shutters to French doors; there are also some dormers. Roof ridging is terracotta. Although interiors have been extensively altered over the years, there are still some possible lath and plaster ceilings in some rooms, red and white marble chimney pieces dating from the 1850s and 1860s, some 1850s and 1880s flooring, some 1850s cornices, a cedar staircase which is in part 1880s and some 1920s skirtings. Outbuildings include a 1920s brick garage and other structures.\n\nThe garden, though redeveloped, retains much of its Victorian era planning and style. (The garden is separately nominated, RNE 103530, and is dealt with in detail in that record). There are grassed banks to the east and south-east of the house, and intermediate lawns around sandstone outcrops edging the harbour; these are all linked with paths and stairs. Groups of trees frame harbour views, and there are many unusual and decorative plantings. A stone wall and steps (dating from the 1957 works) form the West Court in which roses are a feature. The driveway (along which there are fine angophoras) and carriage loop date also from 1957, and there is a kitchen garden. At the water’s edge there is a ruin of a sandstone boat harbour and pool. The pool, dating from the 1850s, is probably the oldest extant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour.\n\nThe house, gardens and views have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House to help form a large, landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. Kirribilli House is a prominent and well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, Kirribilli House is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.2.10 Condition and Integrity\n\nAs indicated in the description above, Kirribilli House has seen many changes over the years, internally and externally, but it still retains a high level of integrity. Over the last few years alterations have included an internal door between the dining and drawing rooms, stairways, security installations, bathroom modernisation works, and garden changes. The pool/boat harbour was reconstructed in 1968 but later collapsed. (February 2002)\n\n### 5.3.3 Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds\n\n#### 5.3.3.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nThe Kirribilli House garden and grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of the Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve open space on the harbour foreshore. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.1 Organising recreation, 8.10 Pursuing excellence in the arts and sciences, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, and Howard. The garden and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history. (Criterion H.1)\n\nThe garden and grounds are significant as an example of a mainly Victorian era landscape style used to complement a Victorian Rustic Gothic house and to exploit a picturesque harbourside setting. The gardens helps to exemplify Victorian taste and social behaviour on the one hand, and, through later redevelopment, the type of setting considered appropriate for Prime Ministerial activities on the other. The garden includes a number of significant specimens, as mentioned in the description. (Criterion D.2 and B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour. (Criterion E.1)\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool is one of the few remaining examples on Sydney Harbour and, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today. (Criteria A.4 and B.2)\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.3.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nThe Kirribilli House, Garden and Grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve the open space on the harbour foreshore.\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today.\n\n##### 5.3.3.2.1 Attributes\n\nAll aspects of the house, garden and pool.\n\n#### 5.3.3.3 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour.\n\n##### 5.3.3.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole building and its garden setting, plus its relationship to Admiralty House, perceived from all viewpoints especially the harbour\n\n#### 5.3.3.4 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.3.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.5 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. The gardens and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history.\n\n##### 5.3.3.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.6 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House and Garden date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds (the house is separately registered, see RNE 2879). The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.3.7 Description\n\nThe grounds are situated on a sloping sandstone ridge on the northern shore of Sydney Harbour. The land drops steeply to the foreshore, through a series of rockbenches and small cliffs. The soil consists of thin podzols which originally supported a woodland of Eucalypts, Angophoras, Cheese trees, Pittosporums, and Figs. There are very few structures in the grounds, apart from paths, flights of steps and occasional pergolas/arches. A nineteenth century saltwater pool (now a ruin) and former boat harbour abut the foreshore; dating from the 1850s the pool is possibly the oldest remnant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour. The rocky foreshore provides the eastern boundary to the property, the Admiralty House grounds the western and southern boundary, and Kirribilli Avenue and a small park reserve the northern boundary. These boundaries are reinforced by tree and shrub plantings and security fencing. On the western boundary are a garage (1920s), a service court, and a picking garden beside the path leading to Admiralty House. The small private courtyard nearby was developed in 1957, now screened by a plumbago hedge. Old fashioned varieties of standard and climbing roses are a feature of this area.\n\nA series of steep grassed terraces modulate the open space between the House and the Harbour, linked by a system of paths and stairs. Terracotta pots mark some of the stairs. The entrance from Kirribilli Avenue is via a simple gravelled driveway constructed in 1957. It passes a guard post and modest lawn areas to terminate in a loop around an Illawarra Flame Tree (planted c.1860). An Angophora, Kentia Palm, Gingko, and a Jacaranda flank the driveway, while a Jacaranda, Mock Olive, Irish Strawberry Tree, Lemon Scented Gum, Silky Oak, and Camphor Laurel screen the northern boundary. On the southern boundary there are relatively few major trees, the most notable being Jacaranda, magnolia, Swamp Cypress, and Canary Island Palm. These were intended to frame the views south to the Harbour and across the grounds of Admiralty House to Bennelong Point. The eastern (harbourside) boundary is planted with Palms, Tree ferns, Angophora, Camphor Laurel, Hills Fig, Olive, Cedar, Lillypilly, and Cypress. These screen some of the views to and from the Harbour. The Victorian interest in foliage and flowers is perpetuated in the plantings of unusual and decorative species in the garden borders and beds. Camellias provide much of the shrub planting, supplemented by Agaves, Agapanthus, Clivea and Ivy.\n\nThe layout of the grounds generally reflect the late Victorian garden style and taste, providing an expansive grassed area which both displays the Gothic style architecture to full effect and allows the enjoyment of the impressive views out to the Harbour. The house, grounds and setting represent one of the few, and prominent, extant examples of Rustic Gothic style properties on the Sydney Harbour shoreline. The grounds are adequate in scale to provide a sufficient setting for this house.\n\nThe house, gardens and grounds, and views, have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The gardens and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty house to help form a large landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. The property is a well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, the place is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.3.8 Condition and Integrity\n\nThe garden is very well maintained, and much of its original Victorian character is intact; the garden was redeveloped in the late 1950s. Not being the principal residence of Prime Ministers (until the current Prime Minister), it is assumed that the grounds are adequate for Prime Ministers’ personal and official requirements during limited stays there. Some changes have been made in recent years, including the removal of one of the Gingkoes. The swimming pool is in a ruinous state. (March 2002)\n\n## 5.4 Condition and Integrity of CHL Values\n\nThe listed CHL values (see Section 5.3) are what is recognised and protected under the EPBC Act and it is the listed CHL values that should guide any conservation works or future developments. Table 5‑1 provides a Condition and Integrity Assessment of the heritage values as outlined in the relevant CHL entries for. This Condition and Integrity Assessment considers the site as one element i.e., Kirribilli House and Garden, whilst the official values have previously listed the site under two separate listings; Kirribilli House and Kirribilli House Garden and Grounds.\n\nSchedule 7A (e) of the EPBC Act requires a description of the condition of the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place. AECOM notes that heritage values can be represented by tangible and intangible elements. Tangible elements can be readily assessed for their condition and integrity unlike intangible elements. At Kirribilli House and garden, the tangible elements that represent the heritage value of the place are identified in Table 5‑1 as ‘Attributes.’ Thus, these attributes have been assessed for their condition and integrity. The findings in Table 5-1 are supported by the individual assessments of the significant, contributory features of Kirribilli House and garden in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements and in detail in Appendix H: Physical survey/Fabric survey (see Volume 3).\n\nTable 5‑1: Condition Assessment of CHL Values Against Both Listings\n\n| Commonwealth Heritage Criterion | Condition | Integrity | Assessment |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion AThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Built form and fabric of the house, function of the site as an official residence of the Prime Ministers (role of rooms and grounds), garden (soft and hard landscape), harbourside views (panoramas and framed), ruins of the boat harbour, boat sheds and bathing pool, physical connection to Admiralty House (paths and views) |\n| Criterion BThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare, or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH–MEDIUMSome loss of integrity of the bathing pool | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:House and garden including the physical and visual curtilage, Gothic Victorian features, harbourside setting and views and ruins of the bathing pool |\n| Criterion DThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; orA class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Prominent siting of the house, planning of the house (rooms constructed between 1856-1900, asymmetrical plan, projecting bays), architectural form (steep pitched gable roofs, dormers, vertically proportioned windows, casement windows), Victorian Rustic Gothic fabric (traceried bargeboards, decorative timber valence ), garden (rolling lawn, stone retaining walls, terraces, meandering paths, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, variety of foliage plants, strategic placement for shade and shelter, ) and harbour views (panoramic, framed and filtered views), harbourside structures (boat harbour, boatsheds, and bathing pool), views and enduring relationship to Admiralty House (connecting paths, views from various vantage points on the harbour) |\n| Criterion EThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Victorian style of the house and garden, harbourside setting (rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs, harbour views), landmark qualities (topography, setting of the house, relationship to Admiralty House, mature garden, and canopies) |\n| Criterion GThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, relationship to Admiralty House, public open days, landmark qualities, harbourside setting and views |\n| Criterion HThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, features that contribute to the site functioning as the prime minister’s residence, historical events associated with various prime ministers |\n\n### 5.4.1 Significance grading\n\nDetailed significance assessments for each contributory element were prepared and is included in the in 5.4.3. The threshold for assessment is defined below and has been adopted from the \nDraft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan 2010, Design 5 (Design 5, 2010):\n\nThe place also includes structures, spaces and elements, including landscape, of varying levels \nof cultural significance. These have been graded according to their relative significance. These gradings include assessment of historic, aesthetic, social, and technical values, as well as use, meanings, and associations. They include tangible as well as intangible values. The consideration of social values includes the public perception of the place. An explanation of the gradings is provided below:\n\n Spaces/Elements Graded 1: Exceptional Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of exceptional cultural significance. They are essential to an understanding of the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting this significance. They retain \n a high degree of integrity and intactness from their original construction/installation or later significant period\n Spaces/Elements Graded 2: High Significance: These spaces or elements are of high cultural significance and play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place (but less than that for Grade 1). They contribute through configuration, location, and/or use. Their integrity may have been compromised by later alteration or reconstruction\n Spaces/Elements Graded 3: Moderate Significance: These structures, spaces or elements retain some integrity but are of lesser cultural significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place. Significant fabric may have been altered or obscured. If so, it may have been of higher significance in their earlier configuration or context\n Spaces/Elements Graded 4: Low Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of low cultural significance. They may have been substantially altered and/or play a minor role in supporting the significance of the place\n Spaces/Elements Graded 5: Intrusive: These structures, spaces or elements are intrusive and are damaging to the cultural significance of the place. They obscure rather than support its significance.\n\n### 5.4.2 Tolerance for change\n\nA grading of tolerance for change can be identified to manage changes to significant elements and \nis described in Table 5‑2.\n\nTable 5‑2 Tolerance for change according to level of significance\n\n| Level of significance | Level of Tolerance |\n| --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | Low - These spaces and elements are essential to understanding the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting that significance. They must be retained and their significant attributes conserved. Adaptation and/or interpretation should only be undertaken where significant layout, elements and/or fabric is altered or missing.These spaces should not be subdivided as this would detract from their integrity. |\n| High | Low - These spaces and elements play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place. They should be retained and conserved. Generally,(as for exceptional), there is some allowance for adaptation where this is in accordance with overall significance, intactness/integrity, and use. New elements may be introduced provided they respect the significant attributes of the spaces. |\n| Moderate | Moderate - These spaces and elements retain some integrity but are of lesser significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place and should be retained and conserved where possible. Adaptation and/or alteration is permissible. New openings and new walls/partitions may be introduced. |\n| Low | High - These spaces and elements have only some significance and should be retained and conserved where possible. They may be adapted, altered or removed. |\n| Intrusive | High - These spaces or elements are considered intrusive. Remove/modify to reduce adverse impacts. |\n\n### 5.4.3 Contributory elements and significance grading\n\nThe contributory elements and fabric that comprises the identified significance are summarised in \nTable 5‑3\\. A detailed room by room is included in Volume 2, Appendix H.","sortOrder":84},{"sectionNumber":"5.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Natural Heritage Assessment","content":"## 4.4 Archaeological potential\n\nTo date, only two known archaeological assessments have been undertaken at Kirribilli House. In 1987, Edward Higginbotham conducted an archaeological inspection of the subfloor space of Kirribilli House ahead of proposed alterations to the flooring. As floorboards were to be removed, the opportunity was taken to inspect the subfloor area of the hallway and augment the historical information presented in the 1985 Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy by Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners \n(Figure 4‑21).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor. ](image.110.png)\n\nFigure 4‑21: General view of hallway following floorboard removal, looking east. The former cellar structure is at left of frame (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nAfter the floorboards in the hallway had been removed, Higginbotham noted the footings of a partition wall visible in the western end of the hallway. The partition wall was constructed of dry-pressed bricks and cement mortar, consistent with the 1921 dating in historical documents (Figure 4‑22).\n\n![A close up, black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards](image.111.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑22: Footings of a dry-pressed partition wall at the western end of the hallway (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nThe removal of this wall exposed a timber-framed construction and lath and plaster wall. This wall \nis consistent with the 1957 alterations (Higginbotham, 1987:2).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling from beneath the walls.](image.112.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑23: View of cellar, looking northwest. Original joists are at far left and right, with newer (narrower) joists over the cellar (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:7)\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor.](image.113.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑24: Entrance hallway, looking north. Original joists in foreground with cellar at extreme left (Source: (Higginbotham, 1987:8)\n\nIn relation to the cellar and the room above (now the entry powder room), the subfloor space also showed that the cellar had been partially infilled. On this fill were dry-pressed brick piers, bonded with cement mortar, ostensibly to support the wall between the hall and the entry powder room. This wall was constructed with cinder blocks and cement mortar. Although the room was converted to a powder room in 1921, the cinder block wall evidences the extensive alterations of 1957 (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nOf the archaeological evidence within the cellar, Higginbotham also notes:\n\nThe configuration of this room… indicates that the original front wall of the house has been removed in the cellar and room above and a dry-pressed brick wall, bonded with cement mortar, constructed in front of it. A concrete joist or beam supports the original front wall above the ground floor room. The floor over the cellar is a concrete slab.\n\n(Higginbotham, 1987:3)\n\nAfter inspecting the entrance hallway, Higginbotham noted the presence of the original joists, \nbut no evidence of the original staircase. He notes that the reconfiguration of the cellar and the room above likely removed any such evidence, however opined that the cellar was probably reached by steps beneath the original staircase. Based on the available physical evidence, he therefore concluded that the only logical location for the original staircase was the room above the cellar (Figure 4‑24) (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nNo artefactual material was noted in the subfloor space, apart from some building debris, including sandstone chips. However, Higginbotham notes that should underfloor deposits be removed at any time in the future, these deposits will have to be examined further to determine the presence of artefactual material (Higginbotham, 1987:4). This removal and examination should be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the archaeological potential of the grounds, an archaeological assessment was undertaken in 2010 by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd as part of Design 5’s draft HMP and was included \nas Appendix J in GML’s 2016 HMP (now included in Appendix L). That assessment has been reviewed as part of this report.\n\nAs indicated in the historical context, the land now comprising Kirribilli House was once part of what was once called “Wotonga” and is now known as Admiralty House (see Section 4.3.1.1 above and Appendix B, Volume 2). A review of historical plans shows no structures from this phase of the site’s history located within the study area.\n\nA review of early maps and plans shows few other structures outside of the house that still survive. \nA map from 1892 show the following features (Figure 4‑25):\n\n An underground tank or reservoir in the lawns/gardens northeast of the house\n Outbuildings to the west of the main house\n Bathing pavilion and boat house on the harbour’s edge to the east of the main house.\n\n![A picture of a Kirribilli House map drawing, outlining the residences outbuildings, tank and bathing pavilion and boat house ](image.114.png)\n\nFigure 4‑25: Detail of Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board map from 1892 showing features surrounding Kirribilli House (Source: Stanton Library, LH REF MF 299/1, Image #MF2990001)\n\nThe outbuildings are likely beneath the western extensions to the main house constructed in 1957. Given the covered walkway from the western elevation of the house to the outbuildings, they were likely buildings that were frequently used, such as an external kitchen, servant’s quarters, and washhouse. Historical sources indicate that from 1878-1879, stables and gardens were located on a separate block opposite Kirribilli House to the north, on land purchased by Lawry family.\n\nThe sea pool and jetty were constructed as part of the original house, c.1856 (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986:44). These are now in ruins along the shore of the harbour.\n\nThe rectangular tank, interpreted by Casey and Lowe as either an underground tank or fishpond, \nis no longer in the landscape. Archival photographs show a greenhouse in the approximate location \nof the “tank”; however, based on a review of archival plans, this feature appears to be a later structure, possibly dating from the 1950s/1960s (Figure 4‑26).\n\n![A picture of where the previous green house was located on the Kirribilli House grounds. ](image.115.png)\n\nFigure 4‑26: Greenhouse/summer house northeast of main house, undated (Source: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet)\n\n### 4.4.1 Management of Unexpected Finds\n\nThis process chiefly applies to archaeological deposits. However, the process also applies \nto unexpected finds of built heritage elements uncovered during renovations or other works across the site, such as original ceilings, flooring, walls, fireplaces, hearths and similar.\n\nIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, the following procedure must be followed Figure 4‑27.Figure 4‑27\n\n![A picture of a flow chart outlining the process for managing unexpected items. ](image.116.png)\n\nFigure 4‑27: Unexpected finds procedure\n\n \n\n### 4.4.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential\n\nBased on his inspection of the subfloor space, Higginbotham recommended that:\n\n The underfloor deposits should be sampled or excavated archaeologically if they are to be removed or extensively disturbed\n The cellar should be more thoroughly inspected for evidence of its original access in the event of the concrete slab floor being removed (either wholly or partially).\n\nIt is understood that neither of these recommendations have yet been required to be activated. Accordingly, they should remain as general recommendations to protect archaeological deposits beneath Kirribilli House.\n\nThe 2010 archaeological assessment concluded that the subfloor areas of Kirribilli House have the potential to retain structural evidence relating to the building’s original layout. It also notes the limited potential for subfloor deposits (Casey & Lowe, 2010:17). As with Higginbotham, Casey & Lowe recommended that any works to the subfloor should be guided by archaeological investigations \nby a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the grounds, Casey & Lowe concluded that archaeological potential was restricted to the “tank” feature and any brick cistern (a common feature on houses of that time) that may have been attached to the original house. It was recommended further that any ground disturbance works in the vicinity of the tank structure at the north-east of the house should also be guided by archaeological investigations by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nThe current assessment identifies that there is potential for archaeology in the western area of the site relating to the former outbuildings. There is potential for maritime archaeology of the seabed is likely which would require further assessments. It is to be noted that the foreshore land is owned by Transport for NSW and may require permission for any future investigation.\n\nAdditionally, sandstone outcrops covered by the garden could contain Indigenous archaeology such \nas engravings and grinding grooves and there may be modifications on the foreshore.\n\n \n\n# 5.0 Significance assessment\n\n## 5.1 Natural Heritage Assessment\n\n### 5.1.1 Discussion\n\nThe land on which Kirribilli House and garden sits has been substantially modified and a significant amount of native vegetation has been removed. This process was initiated with the construction \nof Kirribilli House in 1856 and (refer to Appendix A) extended by subsequent owners and tenants, particularly with the ground modifications in 1957. The dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site is a vestige of the pre-European Landscape.\n\nThe current garden has large area of lawn and a mixture of native and exotic plants. There is only some native, remnant vegetation and the area is not known to have high-quality habitat for fauna. Kirribilli House therefore does not meet the natural heritage criteria under the EPBC Act. It is important to note that Kirribilli Point is part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape and has values associated with that significance.\n\nThe surviving local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remains in along Kirribilli Avenue and the eastern corner of the site. Other surviving species include the Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) and sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum).\n\n## 5.2 Indigenous Heritage Assessment\n\nPrevious investigations have identified a low potential for Indigenous sites to be present within the bounds of Kirribilli House and Gardens. This is due to the fact that the construction of the house required excavation into bedrock and the subsequent landscaping and vegetation modification would have removed or disturbed the skeletal soils and Indigenous vegetation that was previously at this location. However, the site inspection undertaken for the HMP and consultation with Indigenous representatives identified that there is potential for the sandstone outcrops currently covered by the landscaped garden to contain cultural modifications, such as grinding grooves and engravings, if any were made in this area in the past. The presence or absence could only be determined by investigation should these outcrops be exposed during future works. Similarly, evidence of past cultural modification could be present in the foreshore area at the base of the escarpment by the water, which would also require further investigation to determine presence or absence. Finally, it was also noted that in addition to the possibility of extant tangible values in the form of sites, which may or may not be present, \nthe location is part of a larger cultural landscape that still holds intangible cultural values.\n\n## 5.3 Heritage Context\n\n### 5.3.1 Preamble\n\nThe CHL listing separately lists Kirribilli House and Garden. It is AECOM’s view that the listing originates from a historical practice and the site would benefit from one heritage listing in future. \nSections 5.3.2-5.3.3 have been extracted from the Commonwealth Heritage List entries for ‘Kirribilli House’ and ‘Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds.’[\\[1\\]](#_ftn1)\n\n### 5.3.2 Kirribilli House\n\n#### 5.3.2.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1920 to protect harbourside open space from development. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries. (Criterion H. 1)\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values. (Criterion D.2)\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting. (Criterion B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the (separately nominated) redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. (Criterion E.1)\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.2.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Ministers when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1\\`920 to protect harbourside open space from development.\n\n##### 5.3.2.2.1 Attributes\n\nThe fabric and form of the house.\n\n#### 5.3.2.3 Criterion B – Rarity\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting.\n\n##### 5.3.2.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.4 Criterion D – Characteristic Values\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values.\n\n##### 5.3.2.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe building’s form, its external styling and details and its early and original fabric.\n\n#### 5.3.2.5 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have an harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site\n\n##### 5.3.2.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.6 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.2.6.1 Attributes\n\nThe house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days\n\n#### 5.3.2.7 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries.\n\n##### 5.3.2.7.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole of the building, both internally and externally.\n\n#### 5.3.2.8 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds. The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.2.9 Description\n\nKirribilli House is a Victorian Rustic Gothic style single storey house with attics, set amongst gardens and grassed areas sloping down to the northern side of Sydney Harbour. It is a fairly rare example of this style of house still retaining its harbourside setting. Steeply pitched slate gabled roofs with traceried bargeboards are a feature and are a key characteristic of the style. Single storey verandahs are on the eastern and southern sides of the building. There is a castellated bay window, and an entrance porch with a top light. Chimneys are tall and have twin terracotta pots. Walling is stone, which is painted and in some places is rendered in ashlar imitation; there is also some painted brick walling. There is a flat-roofed section to the house. Windows are multi-pane and there are shutters to French doors; there are also some dormers. Roof ridging is terracotta. Although interiors have been extensively altered over the years, there are still some possible lath and plaster ceilings in some rooms, red and white marble chimney pieces dating from the 1850s and 1860s, some 1850s and 1880s flooring, some 1850s cornices, a cedar staircase which is in part 1880s and some 1920s skirtings. Outbuildings include a 1920s brick garage and other structures.\n\nThe garden, though redeveloped, retains much of its Victorian era planning and style. (The garden is separately nominated, RNE 103530, and is dealt with in detail in that record). There are grassed banks to the east and south-east of the house, and intermediate lawns around sandstone outcrops edging the harbour; these are all linked with paths and stairs. Groups of trees frame harbour views, and there are many unusual and decorative plantings. A stone wall and steps (dating from the 1957 works) form the West Court in which roses are a feature. The driveway (along which there are fine angophoras) and carriage loop date also from 1957, and there is a kitchen garden. At the water’s edge there is a ruin of a sandstone boat harbour and pool. The pool, dating from the 1850s, is probably the oldest extant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour.\n\nThe house, gardens and views have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House to help form a large, landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. Kirribilli House is a prominent and well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, Kirribilli House is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.2.10 Condition and Integrity\n\nAs indicated in the description above, Kirribilli House has seen many changes over the years, internally and externally, but it still retains a high level of integrity. Over the last few years alterations have included an internal door between the dining and drawing rooms, stairways, security installations, bathroom modernisation works, and garden changes. The pool/boat harbour was reconstructed in 1968 but later collapsed. (February 2002)\n\n### 5.3.3 Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds\n\n#### 5.3.3.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nThe Kirribilli House garden and grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of the Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve open space on the harbour foreshore. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.1 Organising recreation, 8.10 Pursuing excellence in the arts and sciences, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, and Howard. The garden and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history. (Criterion H.1)\n\nThe garden and grounds are significant as an example of a mainly Victorian era landscape style used to complement a Victorian Rustic Gothic house and to exploit a picturesque harbourside setting. The gardens helps to exemplify Victorian taste and social behaviour on the one hand, and, through later redevelopment, the type of setting considered appropriate for Prime Ministerial activities on the other. The garden includes a number of significant specimens, as mentioned in the description. (Criterion D.2 and B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour. (Criterion E.1)\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool is one of the few remaining examples on Sydney Harbour and, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today. (Criteria A.4 and B.2)\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.3.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nThe Kirribilli House, Garden and Grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve the open space on the harbour foreshore.\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today.\n\n##### 5.3.3.2.1 Attributes\n\nAll aspects of the house, garden and pool.\n\n#### 5.3.3.3 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour.\n\n##### 5.3.3.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole building and its garden setting, plus its relationship to Admiralty House, perceived from all viewpoints especially the harbour\n\n#### 5.3.3.4 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.3.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.5 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. The gardens and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history.\n\n##### 5.3.3.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.6 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House and Garden date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds (the house is separately registered, see RNE 2879). The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.3.7 Description\n\nThe grounds are situated on a sloping sandstone ridge on the northern shore of Sydney Harbour. The land drops steeply to the foreshore, through a series of rockbenches and small cliffs. The soil consists of thin podzols which originally supported a woodland of Eucalypts, Angophoras, Cheese trees, Pittosporums, and Figs. There are very few structures in the grounds, apart from paths, flights of steps and occasional pergolas/arches. A nineteenth century saltwater pool (now a ruin) and former boat harbour abut the foreshore; dating from the 1850s the pool is possibly the oldest remnant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour. The rocky foreshore provides the eastern boundary to the property, the Admiralty House grounds the western and southern boundary, and Kirribilli Avenue and a small park reserve the northern boundary. These boundaries are reinforced by tree and shrub plantings and security fencing. On the western boundary are a garage (1920s), a service court, and a picking garden beside the path leading to Admiralty House. The small private courtyard nearby was developed in 1957, now screened by a plumbago hedge. Old fashioned varieties of standard and climbing roses are a feature of this area.\n\nA series of steep grassed terraces modulate the open space between the House and the Harbour, linked by a system of paths and stairs. Terracotta pots mark some of the stairs. The entrance from Kirribilli Avenue is via a simple gravelled driveway constructed in 1957. It passes a guard post and modest lawn areas to terminate in a loop around an Illawarra Flame Tree (planted c.1860). An Angophora, Kentia Palm, Gingko, and a Jacaranda flank the driveway, while a Jacaranda, Mock Olive, Irish Strawberry Tree, Lemon Scented Gum, Silky Oak, and Camphor Laurel screen the northern boundary. On the southern boundary there are relatively few major trees, the most notable being Jacaranda, magnolia, Swamp Cypress, and Canary Island Palm. These were intended to frame the views south to the Harbour and across the grounds of Admiralty House to Bennelong Point. The eastern (harbourside) boundary is planted with Palms, Tree ferns, Angophora, Camphor Laurel, Hills Fig, Olive, Cedar, Lillypilly, and Cypress. These screen some of the views to and from the Harbour. The Victorian interest in foliage and flowers is perpetuated in the plantings of unusual and decorative species in the garden borders and beds. Camellias provide much of the shrub planting, supplemented by Agaves, Agapanthus, Clivea and Ivy.\n\nThe layout of the grounds generally reflect the late Victorian garden style and taste, providing an expansive grassed area which both displays the Gothic style architecture to full effect and allows the enjoyment of the impressive views out to the Harbour. The house, grounds and setting represent one of the few, and prominent, extant examples of Rustic Gothic style properties on the Sydney Harbour shoreline. The grounds are adequate in scale to provide a sufficient setting for this house.\n\nThe house, gardens and grounds, and views, have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The gardens and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty house to help form a large landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. The property is a well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, the place is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.3.8 Condition and Integrity\n\nThe garden is very well maintained, and much of its original Victorian character is intact; the garden was redeveloped in the late 1950s. Not being the principal residence of Prime Ministers (until the current Prime Minister), it is assumed that the grounds are adequate for Prime Ministers’ personal and official requirements during limited stays there. Some changes have been made in recent years, including the removal of one of the Gingkoes. The swimming pool is in a ruinous state. (March 2002)\n\n## 5.4 Condition and Integrity of CHL Values\n\nThe listed CHL values (see Section 5.3) are what is recognised and protected under the EPBC Act and it is the listed CHL values that should guide any conservation works or future developments. Table 5‑1 provides a Condition and Integrity Assessment of the heritage values as outlined in the relevant CHL entries for. This Condition and Integrity Assessment considers the site as one element i.e., Kirribilli House and Garden, whilst the official values have previously listed the site under two separate listings; Kirribilli House and Kirribilli House Garden and Grounds.\n\nSchedule 7A (e) of the EPBC Act requires a description of the condition of the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place. AECOM notes that heritage values can be represented by tangible and intangible elements. Tangible elements can be readily assessed for their condition and integrity unlike intangible elements. At Kirribilli House and garden, the tangible elements that represent the heritage value of the place are identified in Table 5‑1 as ‘Attributes.’ Thus, these attributes have been assessed for their condition and integrity. The findings in Table 5-1 are supported by the individual assessments of the significant, contributory features of Kirribilli House and garden in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements and in detail in Appendix H: Physical survey/Fabric survey (see Volume 3).\n\nTable 5‑1: Condition Assessment of CHL Values Against Both Listings\n\n| Commonwealth Heritage Criterion | Condition | Integrity | Assessment |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion AThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Built form and fabric of the house, function of the site as an official residence of the Prime Ministers (role of rooms and grounds), garden (soft and hard landscape), harbourside views (panoramas and framed), ruins of the boat harbour, boat sheds and bathing pool, physical connection to Admiralty House (paths and views) |\n| Criterion BThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare, or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH–MEDIUMSome loss of integrity of the bathing pool | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:House and garden including the physical and visual curtilage, Gothic Victorian features, harbourside setting and views and ruins of the bathing pool |\n| Criterion DThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; orA class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Prominent siting of the house, planning of the house (rooms constructed between 1856-1900, asymmetrical plan, projecting bays), architectural form (steep pitched gable roofs, dormers, vertically proportioned windows, casement windows), Victorian Rustic Gothic fabric (traceried bargeboards, decorative timber valence ), garden (rolling lawn, stone retaining walls, terraces, meandering paths, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, variety of foliage plants, strategic placement for shade and shelter, ) and harbour views (panoramic, framed and filtered views), harbourside structures (boat harbour, boatsheds, and bathing pool), views and enduring relationship to Admiralty House (connecting paths, views from various vantage points on the harbour) |\n| Criterion EThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Victorian style of the house and garden, harbourside setting (rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs, harbour views), landmark qualities (topography, setting of the house, relationship to Admiralty House, mature garden, and canopies) |\n| Criterion GThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, relationship to Admiralty House, public open days, landmark qualities, harbourside setting and views |\n| Criterion HThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, features that contribute to the site functioning as the prime minister’s residence, historical events associated with various prime ministers |\n\n### 5.4.1 Significance grading\n\nDetailed significance assessments for each contributory element were prepared and is included in the in 5.4.3. The threshold for assessment is defined below and has been adopted from the \nDraft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan 2010, Design 5 (Design 5, 2010):\n\nThe place also includes structures, spaces and elements, including landscape, of varying levels \nof cultural significance. These have been graded according to their relative significance. These gradings include assessment of historic, aesthetic, social, and technical values, as well as use, meanings, and associations. They include tangible as well as intangible values. The consideration of social values includes the public perception of the place. An explanation of the gradings is provided below:\n\n Spaces/Elements Graded 1: Exceptional Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of exceptional cultural significance. They are essential to an understanding of the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting this significance. They retain \n a high degree of integrity and intactness from their original construction/installation or later significant period\n Spaces/Elements Graded 2: High Significance: These spaces or elements are of high cultural significance and play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place (but less than that for Grade 1). They contribute through configuration, location, and/or use. Their integrity may have been compromised by later alteration or reconstruction\n Spaces/Elements Graded 3: Moderate Significance: These structures, spaces or elements retain some integrity but are of lesser cultural significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place. Significant fabric may have been altered or obscured. If so, it may have been of higher significance in their earlier configuration or context\n Spaces/Elements Graded 4: Low Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of low cultural significance. They may have been substantially altered and/or play a minor role in supporting the significance of the place\n Spaces/Elements Graded 5: Intrusive: These structures, spaces or elements are intrusive and are damaging to the cultural significance of the place. They obscure rather than support its significance.\n\n### 5.4.2 Tolerance for change\n\nA grading of tolerance for change can be identified to manage changes to significant elements and \nis described in Table 5‑2.\n\nTable 5‑2 Tolerance for change according to level of significance\n\n| Level of significance | Level of Tolerance |\n| --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | Low - These spaces and elements are essential to understanding the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting that significance. They must be retained and their significant attributes conserved. Adaptation and/or interpretation should only be undertaken where significant layout, elements and/or fabric is altered or missing.These spaces should not be subdivided as this would detract from their integrity. |\n| High | Low - These spaces and elements play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place. They should be retained and conserved. Generally,(as for exceptional), there is some allowance for adaptation where this is in accordance with overall significance, intactness/integrity, and use. New elements may be introduced provided they respect the significant attributes of the spaces. |\n| Moderate | Moderate - These spaces and elements retain some integrity but are of lesser significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place and should be retained and conserved where possible. Adaptation and/or alteration is permissible. New openings and new walls/partitions may be introduced. |\n| Low | High - These spaces and elements have only some significance and should be retained and conserved where possible. They may be adapted, altered or removed. |\n| Intrusive | High - These spaces or elements are considered intrusive. Remove/modify to reduce adverse impacts. |\n\n### 5.4.3 Contributory elements and significance grading\n\nThe contributory elements and fabric that comprises the identified significance are summarised in \nTable 5‑3\\. A detailed room by room is included in Volume 2, Appendix H.","sortOrder":85},{"sectionNumber":"5.1.1 Discussion","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.1.1 Discussion","content":"### 5.1.1 Discussion\n\nThe land on which Kirribilli House and garden sits has been substantially modified and a significant amount of native vegetation has been removed. This process was initiated with the construction \nof Kirribilli House in 1856 and (refer to Appendix A) extended by subsequent owners and tenants, particularly with the ground modifications in 1957. The dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site is a vestige of the pre-European Landscape.\n\nThe current garden has large area of lawn and a mixture of native and exotic plants. There is only some native, remnant vegetation and the area is not known to have high-quality habitat for fauna. Kirribilli House therefore does not meet the natural heritage criteria under the EPBC Act. It is important to note that Kirribilli Point is part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape and has values associated with that significance.\n\nThe surviving local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remains in along Kirribilli Avenue and the eastern corner of the site. Other surviving species include the Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) and sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum).","sortOrder":86},{"sectionNumber":"5.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Indigenous Heritage Assessment","content":"## 5.2 Indigenous Heritage Assessment\n\nPrevious investigations have identified a low potential for Indigenous sites to be present within the bounds of Kirribilli House and Gardens. This is due to the fact that the construction of the house required excavation into bedrock and the subsequent landscaping and vegetation modification would have removed or disturbed the skeletal soils and Indigenous vegetation that was previously at this location. However, the site inspection undertaken for the HMP and consultation with Indigenous representatives identified that there is potential for the sandstone outcrops currently covered by the landscaped garden to contain cultural modifications, such as grinding grooves and engravings, if any were made in this area in the past. The presence or absence could only be determined by investigation should these outcrops be exposed during future works. Similarly, evidence of past cultural modification could be present in the foreshore area at the base of the escarpment by the water, which would also require further investigation to determine presence or absence. Finally, it was also noted that in addition to the possibility of extant tangible values in the form of sites, which may or may not be present, \nthe location is part of a larger cultural landscape that still holds intangible cultural values.","sortOrder":87},{"sectionNumber":"5.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Heritage Context","content":"## 4.4 Archaeological potential\n\nTo date, only two known archaeological assessments have been undertaken at Kirribilli House. In 1987, Edward Higginbotham conducted an archaeological inspection of the subfloor space of Kirribilli House ahead of proposed alterations to the flooring. As floorboards were to be removed, the opportunity was taken to inspect the subfloor area of the hallway and augment the historical information presented in the 1985 Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy by Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners \n(Figure 4‑21).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor. ](image.110.png)\n\nFigure 4‑21: General view of hallway following floorboard removal, looking east. The former cellar structure is at left of frame (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nAfter the floorboards in the hallway had been removed, Higginbotham noted the footings of a partition wall visible in the western end of the hallway. The partition wall was constructed of dry-pressed bricks and cement mortar, consistent with the 1921 dating in historical documents (Figure 4‑22).\n\n![A close up, black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards](image.111.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑22: Footings of a dry-pressed partition wall at the western end of the hallway (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nThe removal of this wall exposed a timber-framed construction and lath and plaster wall. This wall \nis consistent with the 1957 alterations (Higginbotham, 1987:2).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling from beneath the walls.](image.112.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑23: View of cellar, looking northwest. Original joists are at far left and right, with newer (narrower) joists over the cellar (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:7)\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor.](image.113.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑24: Entrance hallway, looking north. Original joists in foreground with cellar at extreme left (Source: (Higginbotham, 1987:8)\n\nIn relation to the cellar and the room above (now the entry powder room), the subfloor space also showed that the cellar had been partially infilled. On this fill were dry-pressed brick piers, bonded with cement mortar, ostensibly to support the wall between the hall and the entry powder room. This wall was constructed with cinder blocks and cement mortar. Although the room was converted to a powder room in 1921, the cinder block wall evidences the extensive alterations of 1957 (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nOf the archaeological evidence within the cellar, Higginbotham also notes:\n\nThe configuration of this room… indicates that the original front wall of the house has been removed in the cellar and room above and a dry-pressed brick wall, bonded with cement mortar, constructed in front of it. A concrete joist or beam supports the original front wall above the ground floor room. The floor over the cellar is a concrete slab.\n\n(Higginbotham, 1987:3)\n\nAfter inspecting the entrance hallway, Higginbotham noted the presence of the original joists, \nbut no evidence of the original staircase. He notes that the reconfiguration of the cellar and the room above likely removed any such evidence, however opined that the cellar was probably reached by steps beneath the original staircase. Based on the available physical evidence, he therefore concluded that the only logical location for the original staircase was the room above the cellar (Figure 4‑24) (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nNo artefactual material was noted in the subfloor space, apart from some building debris, including sandstone chips. However, Higginbotham notes that should underfloor deposits be removed at any time in the future, these deposits will have to be examined further to determine the presence of artefactual material (Higginbotham, 1987:4). This removal and examination should be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the archaeological potential of the grounds, an archaeological assessment was undertaken in 2010 by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd as part of Design 5’s draft HMP and was included \nas Appendix J in GML’s 2016 HMP (now included in Appendix L). That assessment has been reviewed as part of this report.\n\nAs indicated in the historical context, the land now comprising Kirribilli House was once part of what was once called “Wotonga” and is now known as Admiralty House (see Section 4.3.1.1 above and Appendix B, Volume 2). A review of historical plans shows no structures from this phase of the site’s history located within the study area.\n\nA review of early maps and plans shows few other structures outside of the house that still survive. \nA map from 1892 show the following features (Figure 4‑25):\n\n An underground tank or reservoir in the lawns/gardens northeast of the house\n Outbuildings to the west of the main house\n Bathing pavilion and boat house on the harbour’s edge to the east of the main house.\n\n![A picture of a Kirribilli House map drawing, outlining the residences outbuildings, tank and bathing pavilion and boat house ](image.114.png)\n\nFigure 4‑25: Detail of Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board map from 1892 showing features surrounding Kirribilli House (Source: Stanton Library, LH REF MF 299/1, Image #MF2990001)\n\nThe outbuildings are likely beneath the western extensions to the main house constructed in 1957. Given the covered walkway from the western elevation of the house to the outbuildings, they were likely buildings that were frequently used, such as an external kitchen, servant’s quarters, and washhouse. Historical sources indicate that from 1878-1879, stables and gardens were located on a separate block opposite Kirribilli House to the north, on land purchased by Lawry family.\n\nThe sea pool and jetty were constructed as part of the original house, c.1856 (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986:44). These are now in ruins along the shore of the harbour.\n\nThe rectangular tank, interpreted by Casey and Lowe as either an underground tank or fishpond, \nis no longer in the landscape. Archival photographs show a greenhouse in the approximate location \nof the “tank”; however, based on a review of archival plans, this feature appears to be a later structure, possibly dating from the 1950s/1960s (Figure 4‑26).\n\n![A picture of where the previous green house was located on the Kirribilli House grounds. ](image.115.png)\n\nFigure 4‑26: Greenhouse/summer house northeast of main house, undated (Source: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet)\n\n### 4.4.1 Management of Unexpected Finds\n\nThis process chiefly applies to archaeological deposits. However, the process also applies \nto unexpected finds of built heritage elements uncovered during renovations or other works across the site, such as original ceilings, flooring, walls, fireplaces, hearths and similar.\n\nIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, the following procedure must be followed Figure 4‑27.Figure 4‑27\n\n![A picture of a flow chart outlining the process for managing unexpected items. ](image.116.png)\n\nFigure 4‑27: Unexpected finds procedure\n\n \n\n### 4.4.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential\n\nBased on his inspection of the subfloor space, Higginbotham recommended that:\n\n The underfloor deposits should be sampled or excavated archaeologically if they are to be removed or extensively disturbed\n The cellar should be more thoroughly inspected for evidence of its original access in the event of the concrete slab floor being removed (either wholly or partially).\n\nIt is understood that neither of these recommendations have yet been required to be activated. Accordingly, they should remain as general recommendations to protect archaeological deposits beneath Kirribilli House.\n\nThe 2010 archaeological assessment concluded that the subfloor areas of Kirribilli House have the potential to retain structural evidence relating to the building’s original layout. It also notes the limited potential for subfloor deposits (Casey & Lowe, 2010:17). As with Higginbotham, Casey & Lowe recommended that any works to the subfloor should be guided by archaeological investigations \nby a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the grounds, Casey & Lowe concluded that archaeological potential was restricted to the “tank” feature and any brick cistern (a common feature on houses of that time) that may have been attached to the original house. It was recommended further that any ground disturbance works in the vicinity of the tank structure at the north-east of the house should also be guided by archaeological investigations by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nThe current assessment identifies that there is potential for archaeology in the western area of the site relating to the former outbuildings. There is potential for maritime archaeology of the seabed is likely which would require further assessments. It is to be noted that the foreshore land is owned by Transport for NSW and may require permission for any future investigation.\n\nAdditionally, sandstone outcrops covered by the garden could contain Indigenous archaeology such \nas engravings and grinding grooves and there may be modifications on the foreshore.\n\n \n\n# 5.0 Significance assessment\n\n## 5.1 Natural Heritage Assessment\n\n### 5.1.1 Discussion\n\nThe land on which Kirribilli House and garden sits has been substantially modified and a significant amount of native vegetation has been removed. This process was initiated with the construction \nof Kirribilli House in 1856 and (refer to Appendix A) extended by subsequent owners and tenants, particularly with the ground modifications in 1957. The dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site is a vestige of the pre-European Landscape.\n\nThe current garden has large area of lawn and a mixture of native and exotic plants. There is only some native, remnant vegetation and the area is not known to have high-quality habitat for fauna. Kirribilli House therefore does not meet the natural heritage criteria under the EPBC Act. It is important to note that Kirribilli Point is part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape and has values associated with that significance.\n\nThe surviving local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remains in along Kirribilli Avenue and the eastern corner of the site. Other surviving species include the Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) and sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum).\n\n## 5.2 Indigenous Heritage Assessment\n\nPrevious investigations have identified a low potential for Indigenous sites to be present within the bounds of Kirribilli House and Gardens. This is due to the fact that the construction of the house required excavation into bedrock and the subsequent landscaping and vegetation modification would have removed or disturbed the skeletal soils and Indigenous vegetation that was previously at this location. However, the site inspection undertaken for the HMP and consultation with Indigenous representatives identified that there is potential for the sandstone outcrops currently covered by the landscaped garden to contain cultural modifications, such as grinding grooves and engravings, if any were made in this area in the past. The presence or absence could only be determined by investigation should these outcrops be exposed during future works. Similarly, evidence of past cultural modification could be present in the foreshore area at the base of the escarpment by the water, which would also require further investigation to determine presence or absence. Finally, it was also noted that in addition to the possibility of extant tangible values in the form of sites, which may or may not be present, \nthe location is part of a larger cultural landscape that still holds intangible cultural values.\n\n## 5.3 Heritage Context\n\n### 5.3.1 Preamble\n\nThe CHL listing separately lists Kirribilli House and Garden. It is AECOM’s view that the listing originates from a historical practice and the site would benefit from one heritage listing in future. \nSections 5.3.2-5.3.3 have been extracted from the Commonwealth Heritage List entries for ‘Kirribilli House’ and ‘Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds.’[\\[1\\]](#_ftn1)\n\n### 5.3.2 Kirribilli House\n\n#### 5.3.2.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1920 to protect harbourside open space from development. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries. (Criterion H. 1)\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values. (Criterion D.2)\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting. (Criterion B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the (separately nominated) redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. (Criterion E.1)\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.2.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Ministers when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1\\`920 to protect harbourside open space from development.\n\n##### 5.3.2.2.1 Attributes\n\nThe fabric and form of the house.\n\n#### 5.3.2.3 Criterion B – Rarity\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting.\n\n##### 5.3.2.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.4 Criterion D – Characteristic Values\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values.\n\n##### 5.3.2.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe building’s form, its external styling and details and its early and original fabric.\n\n#### 5.3.2.5 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have an harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site\n\n##### 5.3.2.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.6 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.2.6.1 Attributes\n\nThe house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days\n\n#### 5.3.2.7 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries.\n\n##### 5.3.2.7.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole of the building, both internally and externally.\n\n#### 5.3.2.8 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds. The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.2.9 Description\n\nKirribilli House is a Victorian Rustic Gothic style single storey house with attics, set amongst gardens and grassed areas sloping down to the northern side of Sydney Harbour. It is a fairly rare example of this style of house still retaining its harbourside setting. Steeply pitched slate gabled roofs with traceried bargeboards are a feature and are a key characteristic of the style. Single storey verandahs are on the eastern and southern sides of the building. There is a castellated bay window, and an entrance porch with a top light. Chimneys are tall and have twin terracotta pots. Walling is stone, which is painted and in some places is rendered in ashlar imitation; there is also some painted brick walling. There is a flat-roofed section to the house. Windows are multi-pane and there are shutters to French doors; there are also some dormers. Roof ridging is terracotta. Although interiors have been extensively altered over the years, there are still some possible lath and plaster ceilings in some rooms, red and white marble chimney pieces dating from the 1850s and 1860s, some 1850s and 1880s flooring, some 1850s cornices, a cedar staircase which is in part 1880s and some 1920s skirtings. Outbuildings include a 1920s brick garage and other structures.\n\nThe garden, though redeveloped, retains much of its Victorian era planning and style. (The garden is separately nominated, RNE 103530, and is dealt with in detail in that record). There are grassed banks to the east and south-east of the house, and intermediate lawns around sandstone outcrops edging the harbour; these are all linked with paths and stairs. Groups of trees frame harbour views, and there are many unusual and decorative plantings. A stone wall and steps (dating from the 1957 works) form the West Court in which roses are a feature. The driveway (along which there are fine angophoras) and carriage loop date also from 1957, and there is a kitchen garden. At the water’s edge there is a ruin of a sandstone boat harbour and pool. The pool, dating from the 1850s, is probably the oldest extant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour.\n\nThe house, gardens and views have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House to help form a large, landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. Kirribilli House is a prominent and well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, Kirribilli House is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.2.10 Condition and Integrity\n\nAs indicated in the description above, Kirribilli House has seen many changes over the years, internally and externally, but it still retains a high level of integrity. Over the last few years alterations have included an internal door between the dining and drawing rooms, stairways, security installations, bathroom modernisation works, and garden changes. The pool/boat harbour was reconstructed in 1968 but later collapsed. (February 2002)\n\n### 5.3.3 Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds\n\n#### 5.3.3.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nThe Kirribilli House garden and grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of the Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve open space on the harbour foreshore. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.1 Organising recreation, 8.10 Pursuing excellence in the arts and sciences, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, and Howard. The garden and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history. (Criterion H.1)\n\nThe garden and grounds are significant as an example of a mainly Victorian era landscape style used to complement a Victorian Rustic Gothic house and to exploit a picturesque harbourside setting. The gardens helps to exemplify Victorian taste and social behaviour on the one hand, and, through later redevelopment, the type of setting considered appropriate for Prime Ministerial activities on the other. The garden includes a number of significant specimens, as mentioned in the description. (Criterion D.2 and B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour. (Criterion E.1)\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool is one of the few remaining examples on Sydney Harbour and, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today. (Criteria A.4 and B.2)\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.3.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nThe Kirribilli House, Garden and Grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve the open space on the harbour foreshore.\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today.\n\n##### 5.3.3.2.1 Attributes\n\nAll aspects of the house, garden and pool.\n\n#### 5.3.3.3 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour.\n\n##### 5.3.3.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole building and its garden setting, plus its relationship to Admiralty House, perceived from all viewpoints especially the harbour\n\n#### 5.3.3.4 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.3.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.5 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. The gardens and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history.\n\n##### 5.3.3.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.6 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House and Garden date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds (the house is separately registered, see RNE 2879). The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.3.7 Description\n\nThe grounds are situated on a sloping sandstone ridge on the northern shore of Sydney Harbour. The land drops steeply to the foreshore, through a series of rockbenches and small cliffs. The soil consists of thin podzols which originally supported a woodland of Eucalypts, Angophoras, Cheese trees, Pittosporums, and Figs. There are very few structures in the grounds, apart from paths, flights of steps and occasional pergolas/arches. A nineteenth century saltwater pool (now a ruin) and former boat harbour abut the foreshore; dating from the 1850s the pool is possibly the oldest remnant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour. The rocky foreshore provides the eastern boundary to the property, the Admiralty House grounds the western and southern boundary, and Kirribilli Avenue and a small park reserve the northern boundary. These boundaries are reinforced by tree and shrub plantings and security fencing. On the western boundary are a garage (1920s), a service court, and a picking garden beside the path leading to Admiralty House. The small private courtyard nearby was developed in 1957, now screened by a plumbago hedge. Old fashioned varieties of standard and climbing roses are a feature of this area.\n\nA series of steep grassed terraces modulate the open space between the House and the Harbour, linked by a system of paths and stairs. Terracotta pots mark some of the stairs. The entrance from Kirribilli Avenue is via a simple gravelled driveway constructed in 1957. It passes a guard post and modest lawn areas to terminate in a loop around an Illawarra Flame Tree (planted c.1860). An Angophora, Kentia Palm, Gingko, and a Jacaranda flank the driveway, while a Jacaranda, Mock Olive, Irish Strawberry Tree, Lemon Scented Gum, Silky Oak, and Camphor Laurel screen the northern boundary. On the southern boundary there are relatively few major trees, the most notable being Jacaranda, magnolia, Swamp Cypress, and Canary Island Palm. These were intended to frame the views south to the Harbour and across the grounds of Admiralty House to Bennelong Point. The eastern (harbourside) boundary is planted with Palms, Tree ferns, Angophora, Camphor Laurel, Hills Fig, Olive, Cedar, Lillypilly, and Cypress. These screen some of the views to and from the Harbour. The Victorian interest in foliage and flowers is perpetuated in the plantings of unusual and decorative species in the garden borders and beds. Camellias provide much of the shrub planting, supplemented by Agaves, Agapanthus, Clivea and Ivy.\n\nThe layout of the grounds generally reflect the late Victorian garden style and taste, providing an expansive grassed area which both displays the Gothic style architecture to full effect and allows the enjoyment of the impressive views out to the Harbour. The house, grounds and setting represent one of the few, and prominent, extant examples of Rustic Gothic style properties on the Sydney Harbour shoreline. The grounds are adequate in scale to provide a sufficient setting for this house.\n\nThe house, gardens and grounds, and views, have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The gardens and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty house to help form a large landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. The property is a well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, the place is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.3.8 Condition and Integrity\n\nThe garden is very well maintained, and much of its original Victorian character is intact; the garden was redeveloped in the late 1950s. Not being the principal residence of Prime Ministers (until the current Prime Minister), it is assumed that the grounds are adequate for Prime Ministers’ personal and official requirements during limited stays there. Some changes have been made in recent years, including the removal of one of the Gingkoes. The swimming pool is in a ruinous state. (March 2002)\n\n## 5.4 Condition and Integrity of CHL Values\n\nThe listed CHL values (see Section 5.3) are what is recognised and protected under the EPBC Act and it is the listed CHL values that should guide any conservation works or future developments. Table 5‑1 provides a Condition and Integrity Assessment of the heritage values as outlined in the relevant CHL entries for. This Condition and Integrity Assessment considers the site as one element i.e., Kirribilli House and Garden, whilst the official values have previously listed the site under two separate listings; Kirribilli House and Kirribilli House Garden and Grounds.\n\nSchedule 7A (e) of the EPBC Act requires a description of the condition of the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place. AECOM notes that heritage values can be represented by tangible and intangible elements. Tangible elements can be readily assessed for their condition and integrity unlike intangible elements. At Kirribilli House and garden, the tangible elements that represent the heritage value of the place are identified in Table 5‑1 as ‘Attributes.’ Thus, these attributes have been assessed for their condition and integrity. The findings in Table 5-1 are supported by the individual assessments of the significant, contributory features of Kirribilli House and garden in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements and in detail in Appendix H: Physical survey/Fabric survey (see Volume 3).\n\nTable 5‑1: Condition Assessment of CHL Values Against Both Listings\n\n| Commonwealth Heritage Criterion | Condition | Integrity | Assessment |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion AThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Built form and fabric of the house, function of the site as an official residence of the Prime Ministers (role of rooms and grounds), garden (soft and hard landscape), harbourside views (panoramas and framed), ruins of the boat harbour, boat sheds and bathing pool, physical connection to Admiralty House (paths and views) |\n| Criterion BThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare, or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH–MEDIUMSome loss of integrity of the bathing pool | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:House and garden including the physical and visual curtilage, Gothic Victorian features, harbourside setting and views and ruins of the bathing pool |\n| Criterion DThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; orA class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Prominent siting of the house, planning of the house (rooms constructed between 1856-1900, asymmetrical plan, projecting bays), architectural form (steep pitched gable roofs, dormers, vertically proportioned windows, casement windows), Victorian Rustic Gothic fabric (traceried bargeboards, decorative timber valence ), garden (rolling lawn, stone retaining walls, terraces, meandering paths, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, variety of foliage plants, strategic placement for shade and shelter, ) and harbour views (panoramic, framed and filtered views), harbourside structures (boat harbour, boatsheds, and bathing pool), views and enduring relationship to Admiralty House (connecting paths, views from various vantage points on the harbour) |\n| Criterion EThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Victorian style of the house and garden, harbourside setting (rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs, harbour views), landmark qualities (topography, setting of the house, relationship to Admiralty House, mature garden, and canopies) |\n| Criterion GThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, relationship to Admiralty House, public open days, landmark qualities, harbourside setting and views |\n| Criterion HThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, features that contribute to the site functioning as the prime minister’s residence, historical events associated with various prime ministers |\n\n### 5.4.1 Significance grading\n\nDetailed significance assessments for each contributory element were prepared and is included in the in 5.4.3. The threshold for assessment is defined below and has been adopted from the \nDraft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan 2010, Design 5 (Design 5, 2010):\n\nThe place also includes structures, spaces and elements, including landscape, of varying levels \nof cultural significance. These have been graded according to their relative significance. These gradings include assessment of historic, aesthetic, social, and technical values, as well as use, meanings, and associations. They include tangible as well as intangible values. The consideration of social values includes the public perception of the place. An explanation of the gradings is provided below:\n\n Spaces/Elements Graded 1: Exceptional Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of exceptional cultural significance. They are essential to an understanding of the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting this significance. They retain \n a high degree of integrity and intactness from their original construction/installation or later significant period\n Spaces/Elements Graded 2: High Significance: These spaces or elements are of high cultural significance and play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place (but less than that for Grade 1). They contribute through configuration, location, and/or use. Their integrity may have been compromised by later alteration or reconstruction\n Spaces/Elements Graded 3: Moderate Significance: These structures, spaces or elements retain some integrity but are of lesser cultural significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place. Significant fabric may have been altered or obscured. If so, it may have been of higher significance in their earlier configuration or context\n Spaces/Elements Graded 4: Low Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of low cultural significance. They may have been substantially altered and/or play a minor role in supporting the significance of the place\n Spaces/Elements Graded 5: Intrusive: These structures, spaces or elements are intrusive and are damaging to the cultural significance of the place. They obscure rather than support its significance.\n\n### 5.4.2 Tolerance for change\n\nA grading of tolerance for change can be identified to manage changes to significant elements and \nis described in Table 5‑2.\n\nTable 5‑2 Tolerance for change according to level of significance\n\n| Level of significance | Level of Tolerance |\n| --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | Low - These spaces and elements are essential to understanding the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting that significance. They must be retained and their significant attributes conserved. Adaptation and/or interpretation should only be undertaken where significant layout, elements and/or fabric is altered or missing.These spaces should not be subdivided as this would detract from their integrity. |\n| High | Low - These spaces and elements play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place. They should be retained and conserved. Generally,(as for exceptional), there is some allowance for adaptation where this is in accordance with overall significance, intactness/integrity, and use. New elements may be introduced provided they respect the significant attributes of the spaces. |\n| Moderate | Moderate - These spaces and elements retain some integrity but are of lesser significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place and should be retained and conserved where possible. Adaptation and/or alteration is permissible. New openings and new walls/partitions may be introduced. |\n| Low | High - These spaces and elements have only some significance and should be retained and conserved where possible. They may be adapted, altered or removed. |\n| Intrusive | High - These spaces or elements are considered intrusive. Remove/modify to reduce adverse impacts. |\n\n### 5.4.3 Contributory elements and significance grading\n\nThe contributory elements and fabric that comprises the identified significance are summarised in \nTable 5‑3\\. A detailed room by room is included in Volume 2, Appendix H.","sortOrder":88},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.1 Preamble","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.3.1 Preamble","content":"### 5.3.1 Preamble\n\nThe CHL listing separately lists Kirribilli House and Garden. It is AECOM’s view that the listing originates from a historical practice and the site would benefit from one heritage listing in future. \nSections 5.3.2-5.3.3 have been extracted from the Commonwealth Heritage List entries for ‘Kirribilli House’ and ‘Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds.’[\\[1\\]](#_ftn1)","sortOrder":89},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2 Kirribilli House","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.3.2 Kirribilli House","content":"## 4.4 Archaeological potential\n\nTo date, only two known archaeological assessments have been undertaken at Kirribilli House. In 1987, Edward Higginbotham conducted an archaeological inspection of the subfloor space of Kirribilli House ahead of proposed alterations to the flooring. As floorboards were to be removed, the opportunity was taken to inspect the subfloor area of the hallway and augment the historical information presented in the 1985 Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy by Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners \n(Figure 4‑21).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor. ](image.110.png)\n\nFigure 4‑21: General view of hallway following floorboard removal, looking east. The former cellar structure is at left of frame (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nAfter the floorboards in the hallway had been removed, Higginbotham noted the footings of a partition wall visible in the western end of the hallway. The partition wall was constructed of dry-pressed bricks and cement mortar, consistent with the 1921 dating in historical documents (Figure 4‑22).\n\n![A close up, black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards](image.111.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑22: Footings of a dry-pressed partition wall at the western end of the hallway (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nThe removal of this wall exposed a timber-framed construction and lath and plaster wall. This wall \nis consistent with the 1957 alterations (Higginbotham, 1987:2).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling from beneath the walls.](image.112.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑23: View of cellar, looking northwest. Original joists are at far left and right, with newer (narrower) joists over the cellar (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:7)\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor.](image.113.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑24: Entrance hallway, looking north. Original joists in foreground with cellar at extreme left (Source: (Higginbotham, 1987:8)\n\nIn relation to the cellar and the room above (now the entry powder room), the subfloor space also showed that the cellar had been partially infilled. On this fill were dry-pressed brick piers, bonded with cement mortar, ostensibly to support the wall between the hall and the entry powder room. This wall was constructed with cinder blocks and cement mortar. Although the room was converted to a powder room in 1921, the cinder block wall evidences the extensive alterations of 1957 (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nOf the archaeological evidence within the cellar, Higginbotham also notes:\n\nThe configuration of this room… indicates that the original front wall of the house has been removed in the cellar and room above and a dry-pressed brick wall, bonded with cement mortar, constructed in front of it. A concrete joist or beam supports the original front wall above the ground floor room. The floor over the cellar is a concrete slab.\n\n(Higginbotham, 1987:3)\n\nAfter inspecting the entrance hallway, Higginbotham noted the presence of the original joists, \nbut no evidence of the original staircase. He notes that the reconfiguration of the cellar and the room above likely removed any such evidence, however opined that the cellar was probably reached by steps beneath the original staircase. Based on the available physical evidence, he therefore concluded that the only logical location for the original staircase was the room above the cellar (Figure 4‑24) (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nNo artefactual material was noted in the subfloor space, apart from some building debris, including sandstone chips. However, Higginbotham notes that should underfloor deposits be removed at any time in the future, these deposits will have to be examined further to determine the presence of artefactual material (Higginbotham, 1987:4). This removal and examination should be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the archaeological potential of the grounds, an archaeological assessment was undertaken in 2010 by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd as part of Design 5’s draft HMP and was included \nas Appendix J in GML’s 2016 HMP (now included in Appendix L). That assessment has been reviewed as part of this report.\n\nAs indicated in the historical context, the land now comprising Kirribilli House was once part of what was once called “Wotonga” and is now known as Admiralty House (see Section 4.3.1.1 above and Appendix B, Volume 2). A review of historical plans shows no structures from this phase of the site’s history located within the study area.\n\nA review of early maps and plans shows few other structures outside of the house that still survive. \nA map from 1892 show the following features (Figure 4‑25):\n\n An underground tank or reservoir in the lawns/gardens northeast of the house\n Outbuildings to the west of the main house\n Bathing pavilion and boat house on the harbour’s edge to the east of the main house.\n\n![A picture of a Kirribilli House map drawing, outlining the residences outbuildings, tank and bathing pavilion and boat house ](image.114.png)\n\nFigure 4‑25: Detail of Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board map from 1892 showing features surrounding Kirribilli House (Source: Stanton Library, LH REF MF 299/1, Image #MF2990001)\n\nThe outbuildings are likely beneath the western extensions to the main house constructed in 1957. Given the covered walkway from the western elevation of the house to the outbuildings, they were likely buildings that were frequently used, such as an external kitchen, servant’s quarters, and washhouse. Historical sources indicate that from 1878-1879, stables and gardens were located on a separate block opposite Kirribilli House to the north, on land purchased by Lawry family.\n\nThe sea pool and jetty were constructed as part of the original house, c.1856 (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986:44). These are now in ruins along the shore of the harbour.\n\nThe rectangular tank, interpreted by Casey and Lowe as either an underground tank or fishpond, \nis no longer in the landscape. Archival photographs show a greenhouse in the approximate location \nof the “tank”; however, based on a review of archival plans, this feature appears to be a later structure, possibly dating from the 1950s/1960s (Figure 4‑26).\n\n![A picture of where the previous green house was located on the Kirribilli House grounds. ](image.115.png)\n\nFigure 4‑26: Greenhouse/summer house northeast of main house, undated (Source: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet)\n\n### 4.4.1 Management of Unexpected Finds\n\nThis process chiefly applies to archaeological deposits. However, the process also applies \nto unexpected finds of built heritage elements uncovered during renovations or other works across the site, such as original ceilings, flooring, walls, fireplaces, hearths and similar.\n\nIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, the following procedure must be followed Figure 4‑27.Figure 4‑27\n\n![A picture of a flow chart outlining the process for managing unexpected items. ](image.116.png)\n\nFigure 4‑27: Unexpected finds procedure\n\n \n\n### 4.4.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential\n\nBased on his inspection of the subfloor space, Higginbotham recommended that:\n\n The underfloor deposits should be sampled or excavated archaeologically if they are to be removed or extensively disturbed\n The cellar should be more thoroughly inspected for evidence of its original access in the event of the concrete slab floor being removed (either wholly or partially).\n\nIt is understood that neither of these recommendations have yet been required to be activated. Accordingly, they should remain as general recommendations to protect archaeological deposits beneath Kirribilli House.\n\nThe 2010 archaeological assessment concluded that the subfloor areas of Kirribilli House have the potential to retain structural evidence relating to the building’s original layout. It also notes the limited potential for subfloor deposits (Casey & Lowe, 2010:17). As with Higginbotham, Casey & Lowe recommended that any works to the subfloor should be guided by archaeological investigations \nby a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the grounds, Casey & Lowe concluded that archaeological potential was restricted to the “tank” feature and any brick cistern (a common feature on houses of that time) that may have been attached to the original house. It was recommended further that any ground disturbance works in the vicinity of the tank structure at the north-east of the house should also be guided by archaeological investigations by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nThe current assessment identifies that there is potential for archaeology in the western area of the site relating to the former outbuildings. There is potential for maritime archaeology of the seabed is likely which would require further assessments. It is to be noted that the foreshore land is owned by Transport for NSW and may require permission for any future investigation.\n\nAdditionally, sandstone outcrops covered by the garden could contain Indigenous archaeology such \nas engravings and grinding grooves and there may be modifications on the foreshore.\n\n \n\n# 5.0 Significance assessment\n\n## 5.1 Natural Heritage Assessment\n\n### 5.1.1 Discussion\n\nThe land on which Kirribilli House and garden sits has been substantially modified and a significant amount of native vegetation has been removed. This process was initiated with the construction \nof Kirribilli House in 1856 and (refer to Appendix A) extended by subsequent owners and tenants, particularly with the ground modifications in 1957. The dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site is a vestige of the pre-European Landscape.\n\nThe current garden has large area of lawn and a mixture of native and exotic plants. There is only some native, remnant vegetation and the area is not known to have high-quality habitat for fauna. Kirribilli House therefore does not meet the natural heritage criteria under the EPBC Act. It is important to note that Kirribilli Point is part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape and has values associated with that significance.\n\nThe surviving local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remains in along Kirribilli Avenue and the eastern corner of the site. Other surviving species include the Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) and sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum).\n\n## 5.2 Indigenous Heritage Assessment\n\nPrevious investigations have identified a low potential for Indigenous sites to be present within the bounds of Kirribilli House and Gardens. This is due to the fact that the construction of the house required excavation into bedrock and the subsequent landscaping and vegetation modification would have removed or disturbed the skeletal soils and Indigenous vegetation that was previously at this location. However, the site inspection undertaken for the HMP and consultation with Indigenous representatives identified that there is potential for the sandstone outcrops currently covered by the landscaped garden to contain cultural modifications, such as grinding grooves and engravings, if any were made in this area in the past. The presence or absence could only be determined by investigation should these outcrops be exposed during future works. Similarly, evidence of past cultural modification could be present in the foreshore area at the base of the escarpment by the water, which would also require further investigation to determine presence or absence. Finally, it was also noted that in addition to the possibility of extant tangible values in the form of sites, which may or may not be present, \nthe location is part of a larger cultural landscape that still holds intangible cultural values.\n\n## 5.3 Heritage Context\n\n### 5.3.1 Preamble\n\nThe CHL listing separately lists Kirribilli House and Garden. It is AECOM’s view that the listing originates from a historical practice and the site would benefit from one heritage listing in future. \nSections 5.3.2-5.3.3 have been extracted from the Commonwealth Heritage List entries for ‘Kirribilli House’ and ‘Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds.’[\\[1\\]](#_ftn1)\n\n### 5.3.2 Kirribilli House\n\n#### 5.3.2.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1920 to protect harbourside open space from development. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries. (Criterion H. 1)\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values. (Criterion D.2)\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting. (Criterion B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the (separately nominated) redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. (Criterion E.1)\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.2.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Ministers when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1\\`920 to protect harbourside open space from development.\n\n##### 5.3.2.2.1 Attributes\n\nThe fabric and form of the house.\n\n#### 5.3.2.3 Criterion B – Rarity\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting.\n\n##### 5.3.2.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.4 Criterion D – Characteristic Values\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values.\n\n##### 5.3.2.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe building’s form, its external styling and details and its early and original fabric.\n\n#### 5.3.2.5 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have an harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site\n\n##### 5.3.2.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.6 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.2.6.1 Attributes\n\nThe house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days\n\n#### 5.3.2.7 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries.\n\n##### 5.3.2.7.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole of the building, both internally and externally.\n\n#### 5.3.2.8 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds. The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.2.9 Description\n\nKirribilli House is a Victorian Rustic Gothic style single storey house with attics, set amongst gardens and grassed areas sloping down to the northern side of Sydney Harbour. It is a fairly rare example of this style of house still retaining its harbourside setting. Steeply pitched slate gabled roofs with traceried bargeboards are a feature and are a key characteristic of the style. Single storey verandahs are on the eastern and southern sides of the building. There is a castellated bay window, and an entrance porch with a top light. Chimneys are tall and have twin terracotta pots. Walling is stone, which is painted and in some places is rendered in ashlar imitation; there is also some painted brick walling. There is a flat-roofed section to the house. Windows are multi-pane and there are shutters to French doors; there are also some dormers. Roof ridging is terracotta. Although interiors have been extensively altered over the years, there are still some possible lath and plaster ceilings in some rooms, red and white marble chimney pieces dating from the 1850s and 1860s, some 1850s and 1880s flooring, some 1850s cornices, a cedar staircase which is in part 1880s and some 1920s skirtings. Outbuildings include a 1920s brick garage and other structures.\n\nThe garden, though redeveloped, retains much of its Victorian era planning and style. (The garden is separately nominated, RNE 103530, and is dealt with in detail in that record). There are grassed banks to the east and south-east of the house, and intermediate lawns around sandstone outcrops edging the harbour; these are all linked with paths and stairs. Groups of trees frame harbour views, and there are many unusual and decorative plantings. A stone wall and steps (dating from the 1957 works) form the West Court in which roses are a feature. The driveway (along which there are fine angophoras) and carriage loop date also from 1957, and there is a kitchen garden. At the water’s edge there is a ruin of a sandstone boat harbour and pool. The pool, dating from the 1850s, is probably the oldest extant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour.\n\nThe house, gardens and views have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House to help form a large, landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. Kirribilli House is a prominent and well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, Kirribilli House is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.2.10 Condition and Integrity\n\nAs indicated in the description above, Kirribilli House has seen many changes over the years, internally and externally, but it still retains a high level of integrity. Over the last few years alterations have included an internal door between the dining and drawing rooms, stairways, security installations, bathroom modernisation works, and garden changes. The pool/boat harbour was reconstructed in 1968 but later collapsed. (February 2002)\n\n### 5.3.3 Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds\n\n#### 5.3.3.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nThe Kirribilli House garden and grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of the Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve open space on the harbour foreshore. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.1 Organising recreation, 8.10 Pursuing excellence in the arts and sciences, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, and Howard. The garden and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history. (Criterion H.1)\n\nThe garden and grounds are significant as an example of a mainly Victorian era landscape style used to complement a Victorian Rustic Gothic house and to exploit a picturesque harbourside setting. The gardens helps to exemplify Victorian taste and social behaviour on the one hand, and, through later redevelopment, the type of setting considered appropriate for Prime Ministerial activities on the other. The garden includes a number of significant specimens, as mentioned in the description. (Criterion D.2 and B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour. (Criterion E.1)\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool is one of the few remaining examples on Sydney Harbour and, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today. (Criteria A.4 and B.2)\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.3.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nThe Kirribilli House, Garden and Grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve the open space on the harbour foreshore.\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today.\n\n##### 5.3.3.2.1 Attributes\n\nAll aspects of the house, garden and pool.\n\n#### 5.3.3.3 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour.\n\n##### 5.3.3.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole building and its garden setting, plus its relationship to Admiralty House, perceived from all viewpoints especially the harbour\n\n#### 5.3.3.4 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.3.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.5 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. The gardens and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history.\n\n##### 5.3.3.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.6 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House and Garden date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds (the house is separately registered, see RNE 2879). The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.3.7 Description\n\nThe grounds are situated on a sloping sandstone ridge on the northern shore of Sydney Harbour. The land drops steeply to the foreshore, through a series of rockbenches and small cliffs. The soil consists of thin podzols which originally supported a woodland of Eucalypts, Angophoras, Cheese trees, Pittosporums, and Figs. There are very few structures in the grounds, apart from paths, flights of steps and occasional pergolas/arches. A nineteenth century saltwater pool (now a ruin) and former boat harbour abut the foreshore; dating from the 1850s the pool is possibly the oldest remnant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour. The rocky foreshore provides the eastern boundary to the property, the Admiralty House grounds the western and southern boundary, and Kirribilli Avenue and a small park reserve the northern boundary. These boundaries are reinforced by tree and shrub plantings and security fencing. On the western boundary are a garage (1920s), a service court, and a picking garden beside the path leading to Admiralty House. The small private courtyard nearby was developed in 1957, now screened by a plumbago hedge. Old fashioned varieties of standard and climbing roses are a feature of this area.\n\nA series of steep grassed terraces modulate the open space between the House and the Harbour, linked by a system of paths and stairs. Terracotta pots mark some of the stairs. The entrance from Kirribilli Avenue is via a simple gravelled driveway constructed in 1957. It passes a guard post and modest lawn areas to terminate in a loop around an Illawarra Flame Tree (planted c.1860). An Angophora, Kentia Palm, Gingko, and a Jacaranda flank the driveway, while a Jacaranda, Mock Olive, Irish Strawberry Tree, Lemon Scented Gum, Silky Oak, and Camphor Laurel screen the northern boundary. On the southern boundary there are relatively few major trees, the most notable being Jacaranda, magnolia, Swamp Cypress, and Canary Island Palm. These were intended to frame the views south to the Harbour and across the grounds of Admiralty House to Bennelong Point. The eastern (harbourside) boundary is planted with Palms, Tree ferns, Angophora, Camphor Laurel, Hills Fig, Olive, Cedar, Lillypilly, and Cypress. These screen some of the views to and from the Harbour. The Victorian interest in foliage and flowers is perpetuated in the plantings of unusual and decorative species in the garden borders and beds. Camellias provide much of the shrub planting, supplemented by Agaves, Agapanthus, Clivea and Ivy.\n\nThe layout of the grounds generally reflect the late Victorian garden style and taste, providing an expansive grassed area which both displays the Gothic style architecture to full effect and allows the enjoyment of the impressive views out to the Harbour. The house, grounds and setting represent one of the few, and prominent, extant examples of Rustic Gothic style properties on the Sydney Harbour shoreline. The grounds are adequate in scale to provide a sufficient setting for this house.\n\nThe house, gardens and grounds, and views, have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The gardens and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty house to help form a large landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. The property is a well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, the place is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.3.8 Condition and Integrity\n\nThe garden is very well maintained, and much of its original Victorian character is intact; the garden was redeveloped in the late 1950s. Not being the principal residence of Prime Ministers (until the current Prime Minister), it is assumed that the grounds are adequate for Prime Ministers’ personal and official requirements during limited stays there. Some changes have been made in recent years, including the removal of one of the Gingkoes. The swimming pool is in a ruinous state. (March 2002)\n\n## 5.4 Condition and Integrity of CHL Values\n\nThe listed CHL values (see Section 5.3) are what is recognised and protected under the EPBC Act and it is the listed CHL values that should guide any conservation works or future developments. Table 5‑1 provides a Condition and Integrity Assessment of the heritage values as outlined in the relevant CHL entries for. This Condition and Integrity Assessment considers the site as one element i.e., Kirribilli House and Garden, whilst the official values have previously listed the site under two separate listings; Kirribilli House and Kirribilli House Garden and Grounds.\n\nSchedule 7A (e) of the EPBC Act requires a description of the condition of the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place. AECOM notes that heritage values can be represented by tangible and intangible elements. Tangible elements can be readily assessed for their condition and integrity unlike intangible elements. At Kirribilli House and garden, the tangible elements that represent the heritage value of the place are identified in Table 5‑1 as ‘Attributes.’ Thus, these attributes have been assessed for their condition and integrity. The findings in Table 5-1 are supported by the individual assessments of the significant, contributory features of Kirribilli House and garden in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements and in detail in Appendix H: Physical survey/Fabric survey (see Volume 3).\n\nTable 5‑1: Condition Assessment of CHL Values Against Both Listings\n\n| Commonwealth Heritage Criterion | Condition | Integrity | Assessment |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion AThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Built form and fabric of the house, function of the site as an official residence of the Prime Ministers (role of rooms and grounds), garden (soft and hard landscape), harbourside views (panoramas and framed), ruins of the boat harbour, boat sheds and bathing pool, physical connection to Admiralty House (paths and views) |\n| Criterion BThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare, or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH–MEDIUMSome loss of integrity of the bathing pool | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:House and garden including the physical and visual curtilage, Gothic Victorian features, harbourside setting and views and ruins of the bathing pool |\n| Criterion DThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; orA class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Prominent siting of the house, planning of the house (rooms constructed between 1856-1900, asymmetrical plan, projecting bays), architectural form (steep pitched gable roofs, dormers, vertically proportioned windows, casement windows), Victorian Rustic Gothic fabric (traceried bargeboards, decorative timber valence ), garden (rolling lawn, stone retaining walls, terraces, meandering paths, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, variety of foliage plants, strategic placement for shade and shelter, ) and harbour views (panoramic, framed and filtered views), harbourside structures (boat harbour, boatsheds, and bathing pool), views and enduring relationship to Admiralty House (connecting paths, views from various vantage points on the harbour) |\n| Criterion EThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Victorian style of the house and garden, harbourside setting (rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs, harbour views), landmark qualities (topography, setting of the house, relationship to Admiralty House, mature garden, and canopies) |\n| Criterion GThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, relationship to Admiralty House, public open days, landmark qualities, harbourside setting and views |\n| Criterion HThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, features that contribute to the site functioning as the prime minister’s residence, historical events associated with various prime ministers |\n\n### 5.4.1 Significance grading\n\nDetailed significance assessments for each contributory element were prepared and is included in the in 5.4.3. The threshold for assessment is defined below and has been adopted from the \nDraft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan 2010, Design 5 (Design 5, 2010):\n\nThe place also includes structures, spaces and elements, including landscape, of varying levels \nof cultural significance. These have been graded according to their relative significance. These gradings include assessment of historic, aesthetic, social, and technical values, as well as use, meanings, and associations. They include tangible as well as intangible values. The consideration of social values includes the public perception of the place. An explanation of the gradings is provided below:\n\n Spaces/Elements Graded 1: Exceptional Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of exceptional cultural significance. They are essential to an understanding of the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting this significance. They retain \n a high degree of integrity and intactness from their original construction/installation or later significant period\n Spaces/Elements Graded 2: High Significance: These spaces or elements are of high cultural significance and play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place (but less than that for Grade 1). They contribute through configuration, location, and/or use. Their integrity may have been compromised by later alteration or reconstruction\n Spaces/Elements Graded 3: Moderate Significance: These structures, spaces or elements retain some integrity but are of lesser cultural significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place. Significant fabric may have been altered or obscured. If so, it may have been of higher significance in their earlier configuration or context\n Spaces/Elements Graded 4: Low Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of low cultural significance. They may have been substantially altered and/or play a minor role in supporting the significance of the place\n Spaces/Elements Graded 5: Intrusive: These structures, spaces or elements are intrusive and are damaging to the cultural significance of the place. They obscure rather than support its significance.\n\n### 5.4.2 Tolerance for change\n\nA grading of tolerance for change can be identified to manage changes to significant elements and \nis described in Table 5‑2.\n\nTable 5‑2 Tolerance for change according to level of significance\n\n| Level of significance | Level of Tolerance |\n| --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | Low - These spaces and elements are essential to understanding the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting that significance. They must be retained and their significant attributes conserved. Adaptation and/or interpretation should only be undertaken where significant layout, elements and/or fabric is altered or missing.These spaces should not be subdivided as this would detract from their integrity. |\n| High | Low - These spaces and elements play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place. They should be retained and conserved. Generally,(as for exceptional), there is some allowance for adaptation where this is in accordance with overall significance, intactness/integrity, and use. New elements may be introduced provided they respect the significant attributes of the spaces. |\n| Moderate | Moderate - These spaces and elements retain some integrity but are of lesser significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place and should be retained and conserved where possible. Adaptation and/or alteration is permissible. New openings and new walls/partitions may be introduced. |\n| Low | High - These spaces and elements have only some significance and should be retained and conserved where possible. They may be adapted, altered or removed. |\n| Intrusive | High - These spaces or elements are considered intrusive. Remove/modify to reduce adverse impacts. |\n\n### 5.4.3 Contributory elements and significance grading\n\nThe contributory elements and fabric that comprises the identified significance are summarised in \nTable 5‑3\\. A detailed room by room is included in Volume 2, Appendix H.","sortOrder":90},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.1 Summary Statement of Significanc","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.1 Summary Statement of Significance","content":"#### 5.3.2.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1920 to protect harbourside open space from development. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries. (Criterion H. 1)\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values. (Criterion D.2)\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting. (Criterion B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the (separately nominated) redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. (Criterion E.1)\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)","sortOrder":91},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.2 Criterion A — Processes","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.2 Criterion A — Processes","content":"#### 5.3.2.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Ministers when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1\\`920 to protect harbourside open space from development.","sortOrder":92},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.2.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.2.2.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.2.2.1 Attributes\n\nThe fabric and form of the house.","sortOrder":93},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.3 Criterion B — Rarity","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.3 Criterion B — Rarity","content":"#### 5.3.2.3 Criterion B – Rarity\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting.","sortOrder":94},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.3.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.2.3.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.2.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour.","sortOrder":95},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.4 Criterion D — Characteristic Val","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.4 Criterion D — Characteristic Values","content":"#### 5.3.2.4 Criterion D – Characteristic Values\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values.","sortOrder":96},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.4.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.2.4.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.2.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe building’s form, its external styling and details and its early and original fabric.","sortOrder":97},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.5 Criterion E — Aesthetic Characte","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.5 Criterion E — Aesthetic Characteristics","content":"#### 5.3.2.5 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have an harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site","sortOrder":98},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.5.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.2.5.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.2.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour.","sortOrder":99},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.6 Criterion G — Social Value","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.6 Criterion G — Social Value","content":"#### 5.3.2.6 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.","sortOrder":100},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.6.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.2.6.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.2.6.1 Attributes\n\nThe house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days","sortOrder":101},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.7 Criterion H — Significant People","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.7 Criterion H — Significant People","content":"#### 5.3.2.7 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries.","sortOrder":102},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.7.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.2.7.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.2.7.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole of the building, both internally and externally.","sortOrder":103},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.8 History","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.8 History","content":"#### 5.3.2.8 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds. The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.","sortOrder":104},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.9 Description","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.9 Description","content":"#### 5.3.2.9 Description\n\nKirribilli House is a Victorian Rustic Gothic style single storey house with attics, set amongst gardens and grassed areas sloping down to the northern side of Sydney Harbour. It is a fairly rare example of this style of house still retaining its harbourside setting. Steeply pitched slate gabled roofs with traceried bargeboards are a feature and are a key characteristic of the style. Single storey verandahs are on the eastern and southern sides of the building. There is a castellated bay window, and an entrance porch with a top light. Chimneys are tall and have twin terracotta pots. Walling is stone, which is painted and in some places is rendered in ashlar imitation; there is also some painted brick walling. There is a flat-roofed section to the house. Windows are multi-pane and there are shutters to French doors; there are also some dormers. Roof ridging is terracotta. Although interiors have been extensively altered over the years, there are still some possible lath and plaster ceilings in some rooms, red and white marble chimney pieces dating from the 1850s and 1860s, some 1850s and 1880s flooring, some 1850s cornices, a cedar staircase which is in part 1880s and some 1920s skirtings. Outbuildings include a 1920s brick garage and other structures.\n\nThe garden, though redeveloped, retains much of its Victorian era planning and style. (The garden is separately nominated, RNE 103530, and is dealt with in detail in that record). There are grassed banks to the east and south-east of the house, and intermediate lawns around sandstone outcrops edging the harbour; these are all linked with paths and stairs. Groups of trees frame harbour views, and there are many unusual and decorative plantings. A stone wall and steps (dating from the 1957 works) form the West Court in which roses are a feature. The driveway (along which there are fine angophoras) and carriage loop date also from 1957, and there is a kitchen garden. At the water’s edge there is a ruin of a sandstone boat harbour and pool. The pool, dating from the 1850s, is probably the oldest extant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour.\n\nThe house, gardens and views have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House to help form a large, landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. Kirribilli House is a prominent and well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, Kirribilli House is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.","sortOrder":105},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.2.10 Condition and Integrity","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.2.10 Condition and Integrity","content":"#### 5.3.2.10 Condition and Integrity\n\nAs indicated in the description above, Kirribilli House has seen many changes over the years, internally and externally, but it still retains a high level of integrity. Over the last few years alterations have included an internal door between the dining and drawing rooms, stairways, security installations, bathroom modernisation works, and garden changes. The pool/boat harbour was reconstructed in 1968 but later collapsed. (February 2002)","sortOrder":106},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3 Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.3.3 Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds","content":"## 4.4 Archaeological potential\n\nTo date, only two known archaeological assessments have been undertaken at Kirribilli House. In 1987, Edward Higginbotham conducted an archaeological inspection of the subfloor space of Kirribilli House ahead of proposed alterations to the flooring. As floorboards were to be removed, the opportunity was taken to inspect the subfloor area of the hallway and augment the historical information presented in the 1985 Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy by Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners \n(Figure 4‑21).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor. ](image.110.png)\n\nFigure 4‑21: General view of hallway following floorboard removal, looking east. The former cellar structure is at left of frame (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nAfter the floorboards in the hallway had been removed, Higginbotham noted the footings of a partition wall visible in the western end of the hallway. The partition wall was constructed of dry-pressed bricks and cement mortar, consistent with the 1921 dating in historical documents (Figure 4‑22).\n\n![A close up, black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards](image.111.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑22: Footings of a dry-pressed partition wall at the western end of the hallway (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:6)\n\nThe removal of this wall exposed a timber-framed construction and lath and plaster wall. This wall \nis consistent with the 1957 alterations (Higginbotham, 1987:2).\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling from beneath the walls.](image.112.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑23: View of cellar, looking northwest. Original joists are at far left and right, with newer (narrower) joists over the cellar (Source: Higginbotham, 1987:7)\n\n![A black and white picture of Kirribilli House floorboards in rows panelling across the floor.](image.113.jpeg)\n\nFigure 4‑24: Entrance hallway, looking north. Original joists in foreground with cellar at extreme left (Source: (Higginbotham, 1987:8)\n\nIn relation to the cellar and the room above (now the entry powder room), the subfloor space also showed that the cellar had been partially infilled. On this fill were dry-pressed brick piers, bonded with cement mortar, ostensibly to support the wall between the hall and the entry powder room. This wall was constructed with cinder blocks and cement mortar. Although the room was converted to a powder room in 1921, the cinder block wall evidences the extensive alterations of 1957 (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nOf the archaeological evidence within the cellar, Higginbotham also notes:\n\nThe configuration of this room… indicates that the original front wall of the house has been removed in the cellar and room above and a dry-pressed brick wall, bonded with cement mortar, constructed in front of it. A concrete joist or beam supports the original front wall above the ground floor room. The floor over the cellar is a concrete slab.\n\n(Higginbotham, 1987:3)\n\nAfter inspecting the entrance hallway, Higginbotham noted the presence of the original joists, \nbut no evidence of the original staircase. He notes that the reconfiguration of the cellar and the room above likely removed any such evidence, however opined that the cellar was probably reached by steps beneath the original staircase. Based on the available physical evidence, he therefore concluded that the only logical location for the original staircase was the room above the cellar (Figure 4‑24) (Higginbotham, 1987:3).\n\nNo artefactual material was noted in the subfloor space, apart from some building debris, including sandstone chips. However, Higginbotham notes that should underfloor deposits be removed at any time in the future, these deposits will have to be examined further to determine the presence of artefactual material (Higginbotham, 1987:4). This removal and examination should be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the archaeological potential of the grounds, an archaeological assessment was undertaken in 2010 by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd as part of Design 5’s draft HMP and was included \nas Appendix J in GML’s 2016 HMP (now included in Appendix L). That assessment has been reviewed as part of this report.\n\nAs indicated in the historical context, the land now comprising Kirribilli House was once part of what was once called “Wotonga” and is now known as Admiralty House (see Section 4.3.1.1 above and Appendix B, Volume 2). A review of historical plans shows no structures from this phase of the site’s history located within the study area.\n\nA review of early maps and plans shows few other structures outside of the house that still survive. \nA map from 1892 show the following features (Figure 4‑25):\n\n An underground tank or reservoir in the lawns/gardens northeast of the house\n Outbuildings to the west of the main house\n Bathing pavilion and boat house on the harbour’s edge to the east of the main house.\n\n![A picture of a Kirribilli House map drawing, outlining the residences outbuildings, tank and bathing pavilion and boat house ](image.114.png)\n\nFigure 4‑25: Detail of Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board map from 1892 showing features surrounding Kirribilli House (Source: Stanton Library, LH REF MF 299/1, Image #MF2990001)\n\nThe outbuildings are likely beneath the western extensions to the main house constructed in 1957. Given the covered walkway from the western elevation of the house to the outbuildings, they were likely buildings that were frequently used, such as an external kitchen, servant’s quarters, and washhouse. Historical sources indicate that from 1878-1879, stables and gardens were located on a separate block opposite Kirribilli House to the north, on land purchased by Lawry family.\n\nThe sea pool and jetty were constructed as part of the original house, c.1856 (Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd, 1986:44). These are now in ruins along the shore of the harbour.\n\nThe rectangular tank, interpreted by Casey and Lowe as either an underground tank or fishpond, \nis no longer in the landscape. Archival photographs show a greenhouse in the approximate location \nof the “tank”; however, based on a review of archival plans, this feature appears to be a later structure, possibly dating from the 1950s/1960s (Figure 4‑26).\n\n![A picture of where the previous green house was located on the Kirribilli House grounds. ](image.115.png)\n\nFigure 4‑26: Greenhouse/summer house northeast of main house, undated (Source: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet)\n\n### 4.4.1 Management of Unexpected Finds\n\nThis process chiefly applies to archaeological deposits. However, the process also applies \nto unexpected finds of built heritage elements uncovered during renovations or other works across the site, such as original ceilings, flooring, walls, fireplaces, hearths and similar.\n\nIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, the following procedure must be followed Figure 4‑27.Figure 4‑27\n\n![A picture of a flow chart outlining the process for managing unexpected items. ](image.116.png)\n\nFigure 4‑27: Unexpected finds procedure\n\n \n\n### 4.4.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential\n\nBased on his inspection of the subfloor space, Higginbotham recommended that:\n\n The underfloor deposits should be sampled or excavated archaeologically if they are to be removed or extensively disturbed\n The cellar should be more thoroughly inspected for evidence of its original access in the event of the concrete slab floor being removed (either wholly or partially).\n\nIt is understood that neither of these recommendations have yet been required to be activated. Accordingly, they should remain as general recommendations to protect archaeological deposits beneath Kirribilli House.\n\nThe 2010 archaeological assessment concluded that the subfloor areas of Kirribilli House have the potential to retain structural evidence relating to the building’s original layout. It also notes the limited potential for subfloor deposits (Casey & Lowe, 2010:17). As with Higginbotham, Casey & Lowe recommended that any works to the subfloor should be guided by archaeological investigations \nby a qualified archaeologist.\n\nIn relation to the grounds, Casey & Lowe concluded that archaeological potential was restricted to the “tank” feature and any brick cistern (a common feature on houses of that time) that may have been attached to the original house. It was recommended further that any ground disturbance works in the vicinity of the tank structure at the north-east of the house should also be guided by archaeological investigations by a qualified archaeologist.\n\nThe current assessment identifies that there is potential for archaeology in the western area of the site relating to the former outbuildings. There is potential for maritime archaeology of the seabed is likely which would require further assessments. It is to be noted that the foreshore land is owned by Transport for NSW and may require permission for any future investigation.\n\nAdditionally, sandstone outcrops covered by the garden could contain Indigenous archaeology such \nas engravings and grinding grooves and there may be modifications on the foreshore.\n\n \n\n# 5.0 Significance assessment\n\n## 5.1 Natural Heritage Assessment\n\n### 5.1.1 Discussion\n\nThe land on which Kirribilli House and garden sits has been substantially modified and a significant amount of native vegetation has been removed. This process was initiated with the construction \nof Kirribilli House in 1856 and (refer to Appendix A) extended by subsequent owners and tenants, particularly with the ground modifications in 1957. The dramatic sandstone cliffs at the eastern edge that is viewed from the water and the large outcrop through the central part of the site is a vestige of the pre-European Landscape.\n\nThe current garden has large area of lawn and a mixture of native and exotic plants. There is only some native, remnant vegetation and the area is not known to have high-quality habitat for fauna. Kirribilli House therefore does not meet the natural heritage criteria under the EPBC Act. It is important to note that Kirribilli Point is part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape and has values associated with that significance.\n\nThe surviving local indigenous vegetation includes Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubiginosa). A specimen remains in along Kirribilli Avenue and the eastern corner of the site. Other surviving species include the Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) and sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum).\n\n## 5.2 Indigenous Heritage Assessment\n\nPrevious investigations have identified a low potential for Indigenous sites to be present within the bounds of Kirribilli House and Gardens. This is due to the fact that the construction of the house required excavation into bedrock and the subsequent landscaping and vegetation modification would have removed or disturbed the skeletal soils and Indigenous vegetation that was previously at this location. However, the site inspection undertaken for the HMP and consultation with Indigenous representatives identified that there is potential for the sandstone outcrops currently covered by the landscaped garden to contain cultural modifications, such as grinding grooves and engravings, if any were made in this area in the past. The presence or absence could only be determined by investigation should these outcrops be exposed during future works. Similarly, evidence of past cultural modification could be present in the foreshore area at the base of the escarpment by the water, which would also require further investigation to determine presence or absence. Finally, it was also noted that in addition to the possibility of extant tangible values in the form of sites, which may or may not be present, \nthe location is part of a larger cultural landscape that still holds intangible cultural values.\n\n## 5.3 Heritage Context\n\n### 5.3.1 Preamble\n\nThe CHL listing separately lists Kirribilli House and Garden. It is AECOM’s view that the listing originates from a historical practice and the site would benefit from one heritage listing in future. \nSections 5.3.2-5.3.3 have been extracted from the Commonwealth Heritage List entries for ‘Kirribilli House’ and ‘Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds.’[\\[1\\]](#_ftn1)\n\n### 5.3.2 Kirribilli House\n\n#### 5.3.2.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1920 to protect harbourside open space from development. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries. (Criterion H. 1)\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values. (Criterion D.2)\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting. (Criterion B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the (separately nominated) redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. (Criterion E.1)\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.2.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nKirribilli House, dating from the 1850s, is historically highly significant. Since 1957 it has been the residence of Australian Prime Ministers when visiting Sydney and has provided accommodation for visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the house and grounds help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the house was one of the earliest substantial houses built on this part of Sydney Harbour. Kirribilli House is also associated with a significant public campaign in 1\\`920 to protect harbourside open space from development.\n\n##### 5.3.2.2.1 Attributes\n\nThe fabric and form of the house.\n\n#### 5.3.2.3 Criterion B – Rarity\n\nKirribilli House also has rarity value in being one of relatively few houses of this style to retain its harbourside setting.\n\n##### 5.3.2.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.4 Criterion D – Characteristic Values\n\nWith its traceried bargeboards and steep gabled roofs, the house reflects some of the main characteristics of Victorian Rustic Gothic style. It is also important as an example of a wealthy Sydney harbourside home of the late nineteenth century, and while it has been altered in many ways it retains a number of original internal and external features. Original and early fabric, internally and externally, contributes to the place’s values.\n\n##### 5.3.2.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe building’s form, its external styling and details and its early and original fabric.\n\n#### 5.3.2.5 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have an harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site\n\n##### 5.3.2.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour.\n\n#### 5.3.2.6 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nKirribilli House is well known to the community, both through general awareness of its official roles, and through occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the property. It is consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.2.6.1 Attributes\n\nThe house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days\n\n#### 5.3.2.7 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nKirribilli House is associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. It also has associations with a host of overseas heads of state and other dignitaries.\n\n##### 5.3.2.7.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole of the building, both internally and externally.\n\n#### 5.3.2.8 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds. The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.2.9 Description\n\nKirribilli House is a Victorian Rustic Gothic style single storey house with attics, set amongst gardens and grassed areas sloping down to the northern side of Sydney Harbour. It is a fairly rare example of this style of house still retaining its harbourside setting. Steeply pitched slate gabled roofs with traceried bargeboards are a feature and are a key characteristic of the style. Single storey verandahs are on the eastern and southern sides of the building. There is a castellated bay window, and an entrance porch with a top light. Chimneys are tall and have twin terracotta pots. Walling is stone, which is painted and in some places is rendered in ashlar imitation; there is also some painted brick walling. There is a flat-roofed section to the house. Windows are multi-pane and there are shutters to French doors; there are also some dormers. Roof ridging is terracotta. Although interiors have been extensively altered over the years, there are still some possible lath and plaster ceilings in some rooms, red and white marble chimney pieces dating from the 1850s and 1860s, some 1850s and 1880s flooring, some 1850s cornices, a cedar staircase which is in part 1880s and some 1920s skirtings. Outbuildings include a 1920s brick garage and other structures.\n\nThe garden, though redeveloped, retains much of its Victorian era planning and style. (The garden is separately nominated, RNE 103530, and is dealt with in detail in that record). There are grassed banks to the east and south-east of the house, and intermediate lawns around sandstone outcrops edging the harbour; these are all linked with paths and stairs. Groups of trees frame harbour views, and there are many unusual and decorative plantings. A stone wall and steps (dating from the 1957 works) form the West Court in which roses are a feature. The driveway (along which there are fine angophoras) and carriage loop date also from 1957, and there is a kitchen garden. At the water’s edge there is a ruin of a sandstone boat harbour and pool. The pool, dating from the 1850s, is probably the oldest extant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour.\n\nThe house, gardens and views have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House to help form a large, landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. Kirribilli House is a prominent and well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, Kirribilli House is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.2.10 Condition and Integrity\n\nAs indicated in the description above, Kirribilli House has seen many changes over the years, internally and externally, but it still retains a high level of integrity. Over the last few years alterations have included an internal door between the dining and drawing rooms, stairways, security installations, bathroom modernisation works, and garden changes. The pool/boat harbour was reconstructed in 1968 but later collapsed. (February 2002)\n\n### 5.3.3 Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds\n\n#### 5.3.3.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nThe Kirribilli House garden and grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of the Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve open space on the harbour foreshore. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.1 Organising recreation, 8.10 Pursuing excellence in the arts and sciences, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, and Howard. The garden and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history. (Criterion H.1)\n\nThe garden and grounds are significant as an example of a mainly Victorian era landscape style used to complement a Victorian Rustic Gothic house and to exploit a picturesque harbourside setting. The gardens helps to exemplify Victorian taste and social behaviour on the one hand, and, through later redevelopment, the type of setting considered appropriate for Prime Ministerial activities on the other. The garden includes a number of significant specimens, as mentioned in the description. (Criterion D.2 and B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour. (Criterion E.1)\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool is one of the few remaining examples on Sydney Harbour and, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today. (Criteria A.4 and B.2)\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)\n\n#### 5.3.3.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nThe Kirribilli House, Garden and Grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve the open space on the harbour foreshore.\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today.\n\n##### 5.3.3.2.1 Attributes\n\nAll aspects of the house, garden and pool.\n\n#### 5.3.3.3 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour.\n\n##### 5.3.3.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole building and its garden setting, plus its relationship to Admiralty House, perceived from all viewpoints especially the harbour\n\n#### 5.3.3.4 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.\n\n##### 5.3.3.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.5 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. The gardens and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history.\n\n##### 5.3.3.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting\n\n#### 5.3.3.6 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House and Garden date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds (the house is separately registered, see RNE 2879). The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.\n\n#### 5.3.3.7 Description\n\nThe grounds are situated on a sloping sandstone ridge on the northern shore of Sydney Harbour. The land drops steeply to the foreshore, through a series of rockbenches and small cliffs. The soil consists of thin podzols which originally supported a woodland of Eucalypts, Angophoras, Cheese trees, Pittosporums, and Figs. There are very few structures in the grounds, apart from paths, flights of steps and occasional pergolas/arches. A nineteenth century saltwater pool (now a ruin) and former boat harbour abut the foreshore; dating from the 1850s the pool is possibly the oldest remnant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour. The rocky foreshore provides the eastern boundary to the property, the Admiralty House grounds the western and southern boundary, and Kirribilli Avenue and a small park reserve the northern boundary. These boundaries are reinforced by tree and shrub plantings and security fencing. On the western boundary are a garage (1920s), a service court, and a picking garden beside the path leading to Admiralty House. The small private courtyard nearby was developed in 1957, now screened by a plumbago hedge. Old fashioned varieties of standard and climbing roses are a feature of this area.\n\nA series of steep grassed terraces modulate the open space between the House and the Harbour, linked by a system of paths and stairs. Terracotta pots mark some of the stairs. The entrance from Kirribilli Avenue is via a simple gravelled driveway constructed in 1957. It passes a guard post and modest lawn areas to terminate in a loop around an Illawarra Flame Tree (planted c.1860). An Angophora, Kentia Palm, Gingko, and a Jacaranda flank the driveway, while a Jacaranda, Mock Olive, Irish Strawberry Tree, Lemon Scented Gum, Silky Oak, and Camphor Laurel screen the northern boundary. On the southern boundary there are relatively few major trees, the most notable being Jacaranda, magnolia, Swamp Cypress, and Canary Island Palm. These were intended to frame the views south to the Harbour and across the grounds of Admiralty House to Bennelong Point. The eastern (harbourside) boundary is planted with Palms, Tree ferns, Angophora, Camphor Laurel, Hills Fig, Olive, Cedar, Lillypilly, and Cypress. These screen some of the views to and from the Harbour. The Victorian interest in foliage and flowers is perpetuated in the plantings of unusual and decorative species in the garden borders and beds. Camellias provide much of the shrub planting, supplemented by Agaves, Agapanthus, Clivea and Ivy.\n\nThe layout of the grounds generally reflect the late Victorian garden style and taste, providing an expansive grassed area which both displays the Gothic style architecture to full effect and allows the enjoyment of the impressive views out to the Harbour. The house, grounds and setting represent one of the few, and prominent, extant examples of Rustic Gothic style properties on the Sydney Harbour shoreline. The grounds are adequate in scale to provide a sufficient setting for this house.\n\nThe house, gardens and grounds, and views, have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The gardens and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty house to help form a large landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. The property is a well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, the place is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.\n\n#### 5.3.3.8 Condition and Integrity\n\nThe garden is very well maintained, and much of its original Victorian character is intact; the garden was redeveloped in the late 1950s. Not being the principal residence of Prime Ministers (until the current Prime Minister), it is assumed that the grounds are adequate for Prime Ministers’ personal and official requirements during limited stays there. Some changes have been made in recent years, including the removal of one of the Gingkoes. The swimming pool is in a ruinous state. (March 2002)\n\n## 5.4 Condition and Integrity of CHL Values\n\nThe listed CHL values (see Section 5.3) are what is recognised and protected under the EPBC Act and it is the listed CHL values that should guide any conservation works or future developments. Table 5‑1 provides a Condition and Integrity Assessment of the heritage values as outlined in the relevant CHL entries for. This Condition and Integrity Assessment considers the site as one element i.e., Kirribilli House and Garden, whilst the official values have previously listed the site under two separate listings; Kirribilli House and Kirribilli House Garden and Grounds.\n\nSchedule 7A (e) of the EPBC Act requires a description of the condition of the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place. AECOM notes that heritage values can be represented by tangible and intangible elements. Tangible elements can be readily assessed for their condition and integrity unlike intangible elements. At Kirribilli House and garden, the tangible elements that represent the heritage value of the place are identified in Table 5‑1 as ‘Attributes.’ Thus, these attributes have been assessed for their condition and integrity. The findings in Table 5-1 are supported by the individual assessments of the significant, contributory features of Kirribilli House and garden in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements and in detail in Appendix H: Physical survey/Fabric survey (see Volume 3).\n\nTable 5‑1: Condition Assessment of CHL Values Against Both Listings\n\n| Commonwealth Heritage Criterion | Condition | Integrity | Assessment |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion AThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Built form and fabric of the house, function of the site as an official residence of the Prime Ministers (role of rooms and grounds), garden (soft and hard landscape), harbourside views (panoramas and framed), ruins of the boat harbour, boat sheds and bathing pool, physical connection to Admiralty House (paths and views) |\n| Criterion BThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare, or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH–MEDIUMSome loss of integrity of the bathing pool | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:House and garden including the physical and visual curtilage, Gothic Victorian features, harbourside setting and views and ruins of the bathing pool |\n| Criterion DThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; orA class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Prominent siting of the house, planning of the house (rooms constructed between 1856-1900, asymmetrical plan, projecting bays), architectural form (steep pitched gable roofs, dormers, vertically proportioned windows, casement windows), Victorian Rustic Gothic fabric (traceried bargeboards, decorative timber valence ), garden (rolling lawn, stone retaining walls, terraces, meandering paths, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, variety of foliage plants, strategic placement for shade and shelter, ) and harbour views (panoramic, framed and filtered views), harbourside structures (boat harbour, boatsheds, and bathing pool), views and enduring relationship to Admiralty House (connecting paths, views from various vantage points on the harbour) |\n| Criterion EThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Victorian style of the house and garden, harbourside setting (rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs, harbour views), landmark qualities (topography, setting of the house, relationship to Admiralty House, mature garden, and canopies) |\n| Criterion GThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, relationship to Admiralty House, public open days, landmark qualities, harbourside setting and views |\n| Criterion HThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, features that contribute to the site functioning as the prime minister’s residence, historical events associated with various prime ministers |\n\n### 5.4.1 Significance grading\n\nDetailed significance assessments for each contributory element were prepared and is included in the in 5.4.3. The threshold for assessment is defined below and has been adopted from the \nDraft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan 2010, Design 5 (Design 5, 2010):\n\nThe place also includes structures, spaces and elements, including landscape, of varying levels \nof cultural significance. These have been graded according to their relative significance. These gradings include assessment of historic, aesthetic, social, and technical values, as well as use, meanings, and associations. They include tangible as well as intangible values. The consideration of social values includes the public perception of the place. An explanation of the gradings is provided below:\n\n Spaces/Elements Graded 1: Exceptional Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of exceptional cultural significance. They are essential to an understanding of the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting this significance. They retain \n a high degree of integrity and intactness from their original construction/installation or later significant period\n Spaces/Elements Graded 2: High Significance: These spaces or elements are of high cultural significance and play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place (but less than that for Grade 1). They contribute through configuration, location, and/or use. Their integrity may have been compromised by later alteration or reconstruction\n Spaces/Elements Graded 3: Moderate Significance: These structures, spaces or elements retain some integrity but are of lesser cultural significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place. Significant fabric may have been altered or obscured. If so, it may have been of higher significance in their earlier configuration or context\n Spaces/Elements Graded 4: Low Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of low cultural significance. They may have been substantially altered and/or play a minor role in supporting the significance of the place\n Spaces/Elements Graded 5: Intrusive: These structures, spaces or elements are intrusive and are damaging to the cultural significance of the place. They obscure rather than support its significance.\n\n### 5.4.2 Tolerance for change\n\nA grading of tolerance for change can be identified to manage changes to significant elements and \nis described in Table 5‑2.\n\nTable 5‑2 Tolerance for change according to level of significance\n\n| Level of significance | Level of Tolerance |\n| --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | Low - These spaces and elements are essential to understanding the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting that significance. They must be retained and their significant attributes conserved. Adaptation and/or interpretation should only be undertaken where significant layout, elements and/or fabric is altered or missing.These spaces should not be subdivided as this would detract from their integrity. |\n| High | Low - These spaces and elements play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place. They should be retained and conserved. Generally,(as for exceptional), there is some allowance for adaptation where this is in accordance with overall significance, intactness/integrity, and use. New elements may be introduced provided they respect the significant attributes of the spaces. |\n| Moderate | Moderate - These spaces and elements retain some integrity but are of lesser significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place and should be retained and conserved where possible. Adaptation and/or alteration is permissible. New openings and new walls/partitions may be introduced. |\n| Low | High - These spaces and elements have only some significance and should be retained and conserved where possible. They may be adapted, altered or removed. |\n| Intrusive | High - These spaces or elements are considered intrusive. Remove/modify to reduce adverse impacts. |\n\n### 5.4.3 Contributory elements and significance grading\n\nThe contributory elements and fabric that comprises the identified significance are summarised in \nTable 5‑3\\. A detailed room by room is included in Volume 2, Appendix H.","sortOrder":107},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.1 Summary Statement of Significanc","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.3.1 Summary Statement of Significance","content":"#### 5.3.3.1 Summary Statement of Significance\n\nThe Kirribilli House garden and grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of the Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve open space on the harbour foreshore. (Criterion A.4) (Themes: 7.4 Federating Australia, 7.6 Administering Australia, 8.1 Organising recreation, 8.10 Pursuing excellence in the arts and sciences, 8.12 Living in and around Australian homes, 8.13 Living in cities and suburbs)\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, and Howard. The garden and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history. (Criterion H.1)\n\nThe garden and grounds are significant as an example of a mainly Victorian era landscape style used to complement a Victorian Rustic Gothic house and to exploit a picturesque harbourside setting. The gardens helps to exemplify Victorian taste and social behaviour on the one hand, and, through later redevelopment, the type of setting considered appropriate for Prime Ministerial activities on the other. The garden includes a number of significant specimens, as mentioned in the description. (Criterion D.2 and B.2)\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour. (Criterion E.1)\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool is one of the few remaining examples on Sydney Harbour and, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today. (Criteria A.4 and B.2)\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community. (Criterion G.1)","sortOrder":108},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.2 Criterion A — Processes","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.3.2 Criterion A — Processes","content":"#### 5.3.3.2 Criterion A – Processes\n\nThe Kirribilli House, Garden and Grounds, developed from the 1850s onwards, are historically significant. They help to reflect the lifestyle of prominent Sydney residents of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are associated with the development of Sydney Harbour foreshores over a considerable period. Further, and more importantly, they are associated with Prime Ministerial use of the property since 1957, and with visiting overseas guests of the Commonwealth who have used the property. The property also has notable associations with an early campaign to conserve the open space on the harbour foreshore.\n\nThe nineteenth century harbourside pool, although in a ruinous state, it is possibly the oldest bathing pool surviving around the harbour today.","sortOrder":109},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.2.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.3.2.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.3.2.1 Attributes\n\nAll aspects of the house, garden and pool.","sortOrder":110},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.3 Criterion E — Aesthetic Characte","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.3.3 Criterion E — Aesthetic Characteristics","content":"#### 5.3.3.3 Criterion E – Aesthetic Characteristics\n\nThe Gothic styled house and the redeveloped Victorian era garden have a harmonious visual relationship which is strengthened by the harbour views available from the site. The place’s aesthetic significance is further enhanced by the visibility of the property from the harbour, the textured character of the aged trunks and canopies of the array of mature trees, and the way in which the garden and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty House in forming a significant garden backdrop on this northern edge of the harbour.","sortOrder":111},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.3.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.3.3.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.3.3.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole building and its garden setting, plus its relationship to Admiralty House, perceived from all viewpoints especially the harbour","sortOrder":112},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.4 Criterion G — Social Value","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.3.4 Criterion G — Social Value","content":"#### 5.3.3.4 Criterion G – Social Value\n\nThe gardens and grounds are well known to the community, as a result of occasional open days which have given the public opportunities to visit the Prime Ministerial property, and because of their high visibility from the harbour. They are consequently of social significance both to Sydneysiders and to the wider Australian community.","sortOrder":113},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.4.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.3.4.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.3.4.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting","sortOrder":114},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.5 Criterion H — Significant People","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.3.5 Criterion H — Significant People","content":"#### 5.3.3.5 Criterion H – Significant People\n\nThe garden and grounds are associated with Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Messrs Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard. The gardens and grounds are further associated with Professor E.G. Waterhouse who redesigned the garden in 1956 and who occupies an important place in Australia’s garden history.","sortOrder":115},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.5.1 Attributes","sectionType":"section","heading":"5.3.3.5.1 Attributes","content":"##### 5.3.3.5.1 Attributes\n\nThe whole house and its garden setting","sortOrder":116},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.6 History","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.3.6 History","content":"#### 5.3.3.6 History\n\nThe origins of Kirribilli House and Garden date back to the 1850s, when in 1854 Sydney merchant Adolf Frederick Feez bought the land for 200 pounds (the house is separately registered, see RNE 2879). The house, one of the earliest substantial houses erected in Kirribilli, was built by 1858 when the property was purchased by Esther Hughes for 3000 pounds. In 1871 Mrs Hughes gave the property to her daughter Esther, whose husband James Taylor was the Commissary-General of Ordinance in Sydney. Various changes were made to the house by the Taylors and by the 1880s it had virtually doubled in size; the changes were in sympathy with the original Victorian Gothic styling. The house helps to reflect the lifestyle of wealthy Sydney residents in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Following the death of Mrs Taylor, her son Tom Lawry inherited the property who had it for some time before a sequence of other owners had the place.\n\nIn 1919 Sydney solicitor A.W. Allen bought the property and in early 1920 proposed a five-lot subdivision. Public reaction was swift and, led by high profile individuals like Dr Mary Booth OBE, Major General Hon Sir Granville Ryrie KCMG, and Sydney Smith, a campaign was launched to save open space at this point on the harbour. As a result, the Commonwealth Government decided to resume the property. More additions were made, and during the 1920s Kirribilli House was used in conjunction with Admiralty House as the Governor General’s residence (although for much of the year Kirribilli House was occupied just by the vice-regal staff). The property was then leased to individuals from 1930 until 1953.\n\nIn 1956 the Commonwealth decided to use Kirribilli as the residence of the Prime Minister when visiting Sydney and as accommodation for overseas guests of the Commonwealth. Substantial restoration works (including additions) were carried out in 1957 under the guidance of architects Fowell, Mansfield and Maclurcan, and the garden was redesigned by Professor E.G. Waterhouse. In November of that year the house received its first overseas guest, the Prime Minister of Japan. Kirribilli House has provided Sydney accommodation for Australian Prime Ministers since 1957, including Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard.","sortOrder":117},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.7 Description","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.3.7 Description","content":"#### 5.3.3.7 Description\n\nThe grounds are situated on a sloping sandstone ridge on the northern shore of Sydney Harbour. The land drops steeply to the foreshore, through a series of rockbenches and small cliffs. The soil consists of thin podzols which originally supported a woodland of Eucalypts, Angophoras, Cheese trees, Pittosporums, and Figs. There are very few structures in the grounds, apart from paths, flights of steps and occasional pergolas/arches. A nineteenth century saltwater pool (now a ruin) and former boat harbour abut the foreshore; dating from the 1850s the pool is possibly the oldest remnant bathing pool on Sydney Harbour. The rocky foreshore provides the eastern boundary to the property, the Admiralty House grounds the western and southern boundary, and Kirribilli Avenue and a small park reserve the northern boundary. These boundaries are reinforced by tree and shrub plantings and security fencing. On the western boundary are a garage (1920s), a service court, and a picking garden beside the path leading to Admiralty House. The small private courtyard nearby was developed in 1957, now screened by a plumbago hedge. Old fashioned varieties of standard and climbing roses are a feature of this area.\n\nA series of steep grassed terraces modulate the open space between the House and the Harbour, linked by a system of paths and stairs. Terracotta pots mark some of the stairs. The entrance from Kirribilli Avenue is via a simple gravelled driveway constructed in 1957. It passes a guard post and modest lawn areas to terminate in a loop around an Illawarra Flame Tree (planted c.1860). An Angophora, Kentia Palm, Gingko, and a Jacaranda flank the driveway, while a Jacaranda, Mock Olive, Irish Strawberry Tree, Lemon Scented Gum, Silky Oak, and Camphor Laurel screen the northern boundary. On the southern boundary there are relatively few major trees, the most notable being Jacaranda, magnolia, Swamp Cypress, and Canary Island Palm. These were intended to frame the views south to the Harbour and across the grounds of Admiralty House to Bennelong Point. The eastern (harbourside) boundary is planted with Palms, Tree ferns, Angophora, Camphor Laurel, Hills Fig, Olive, Cedar, Lillypilly, and Cypress. These screen some of the views to and from the Harbour. The Victorian interest in foliage and flowers is perpetuated in the plantings of unusual and decorative species in the garden borders and beds. Camellias provide much of the shrub planting, supplemented by Agaves, Agapanthus, Clivea and Ivy.\n\nThe layout of the grounds generally reflect the late Victorian garden style and taste, providing an expansive grassed area which both displays the Gothic style architecture to full effect and allows the enjoyment of the impressive views out to the Harbour. The house, grounds and setting represent one of the few, and prominent, extant examples of Rustic Gothic style properties on the Sydney Harbour shoreline. The grounds are adequate in scale to provide a sufficient setting for this house.\n\nThe house, gardens and grounds, and views, have a harmonious relationship, amplifying the place’s aesthetic values. The gardens and grounds complement those of adjacent Admiralty house to help form a large landscaped garden zone on the northern slopes of the harbour. The property is a well-known feature of Sydney Harbour, and occasional open days for the public serve to heighten the social significance of the place in the minds of Sydneysiders. Through its association with Prime Ministers, the place is known to large numbers of Australians beyond Sydney.","sortOrder":118},{"sectionNumber":"5.3.3.8 Condition and Integrity","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"5.3.3.8 Condition and Integrity","content":"#### 5.3.3.8 Condition and Integrity\n\nThe garden is very well maintained, and much of its original Victorian character is intact; the garden was redeveloped in the late 1950s. Not being the principal residence of Prime Ministers (until the current Prime Minister), it is assumed that the grounds are adequate for Prime Ministers’ personal and official requirements during limited stays there. Some changes have been made in recent years, including the removal of one of the Gingkoes. The swimming pool is in a ruinous state. (March 2002)","sortOrder":119},{"sectionNumber":"5.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Condition and Integrity of CHL Values","content":"## 5.4 Condition and Integrity of CHL Values\n\nThe listed CHL values (see Section 5.3) are what is recognised and protected under the EPBC Act and it is the listed CHL values that should guide any conservation works or future developments. Table 5‑1 provides a Condition and Integrity Assessment of the heritage values as outlined in the relevant CHL entries for. This Condition and Integrity Assessment considers the site as one element i.e., Kirribilli House and Garden, whilst the official values have previously listed the site under two separate listings; Kirribilli House and Kirribilli House Garden and Grounds.\n\nSchedule 7A (e) of the EPBC Act requires a description of the condition of the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place. AECOM notes that heritage values can be represented by tangible and intangible elements. Tangible elements can be readily assessed for their condition and integrity unlike intangible elements. At Kirribilli House and garden, the tangible elements that represent the heritage value of the place are identified in Table 5‑1 as ‘Attributes.’ Thus, these attributes have been assessed for their condition and integrity. The findings in Table 5-1 are supported by the individual assessments of the significant, contributory features of Kirribilli House and garden in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements and in detail in Appendix H: Physical survey/Fabric survey (see Volume 3).\n\nTable 5‑1: Condition Assessment of CHL Values Against Both Listings\n\n| Commonwealth Heritage Criterion | Condition | Integrity | Assessment |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Criterion AThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Built form and fabric of the house, function of the site as an official residence of the Prime Ministers (role of rooms and grounds), garden (soft and hard landscape), harbourside views (panoramas and framed), ruins of the boat harbour, boat sheds and bathing pool, physical connection to Admiralty House (paths and views) |\n| Criterion BThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare, or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH–MEDIUMSome loss of integrity of the bathing pool | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:House and garden including the physical and visual curtilage, Gothic Victorian features, harbourside setting and views and ruins of the bathing pool |\n| Criterion DThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:A class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; orA class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Prominent siting of the house, planning of the house (rooms constructed between 1856-1900, asymmetrical plan, projecting bays), architectural form (steep pitched gable roofs, dormers, vertically proportioned windows, casement windows), Victorian Rustic Gothic fabric (traceried bargeboards, decorative timber valence ), garden (rolling lawn, stone retaining walls, terraces, meandering paths, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, variety of foliage plants, strategic placement for shade and shelter, ) and harbour views (panoramic, framed and filtered views), harbourside structures (boat harbour, boatsheds, and bathing pool), views and enduring relationship to Admiralty House (connecting paths, views from various vantage points on the harbour) |\n| Criterion EThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:Victorian style of the house and garden, harbourside setting (rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs, harbour views), landmark qualities (topography, setting of the house, relationship to Admiralty House, mature garden, and canopies) |\n| Criterion GThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, relationship to Admiralty House, public open days, landmark qualities, harbourside setting and views |\n| Criterion HThe place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. | GOOD | HIGH | The following attributes provide the basis for the Condition and Integrity Assessment:The entire house and gardens, features that contribute to the site functioning as the prime minister’s residence, historical events associated with various prime ministers |","sortOrder":120},{"sectionNumber":"5.4.1 Significance grading","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.4.1 Significance grading","content":"### 5.4.1 Significance grading\n\nDetailed significance assessments for each contributory element were prepared and is included in the in 5.4.3. The threshold for assessment is defined below and has been adopted from the \nDraft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan 2010, Design 5 (Design 5, 2010):\n\nThe place also includes structures, spaces and elements, including landscape, of varying levels \nof cultural significance. These have been graded according to their relative significance. These gradings include assessment of historic, aesthetic, social, and technical values, as well as use, meanings, and associations. They include tangible as well as intangible values. The consideration of social values includes the public perception of the place. An explanation of the gradings is provided below:\n\n Spaces/Elements Graded 1: Exceptional Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of exceptional cultural significance. They are essential to an understanding of the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting this significance. They retain \n a high degree of integrity and intactness from their original construction/installation or later significant period\n Spaces/Elements Graded 2: High Significance: These spaces or elements are of high cultural significance and play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place (but less than that for Grade 1). They contribute through configuration, location, and/or use. Their integrity may have been compromised by later alteration or reconstruction\n Spaces/Elements Graded 3: Moderate Significance: These structures, spaces or elements retain some integrity but are of lesser cultural significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place. Significant fabric may have been altered or obscured. If so, it may have been of higher significance in their earlier configuration or context\n Spaces/Elements Graded 4: Low Significance: These structures, spaces or elements are of low cultural significance. They may have been substantially altered and/or play a minor role in supporting the significance of the place\n Spaces/Elements Graded 5: Intrusive: These structures, spaces or elements are intrusive and are damaging to the cultural significance of the place. They obscure rather than support its significance.","sortOrder":121},{"sectionNumber":"5.4.2 Tolerance for change","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.4.2 Tolerance for change","content":"### 5.4.2 Tolerance for change\n\nA grading of tolerance for change can be identified to manage changes to significant elements and \nis described in Table 5‑2.\n\nTable 5‑2 Tolerance for change according to level of significance\n\n| Level of significance | Level of Tolerance |\n| --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Exceptional | Low - These spaces and elements are essential to understanding the significance of the place and play a crucial role in supporting that significance. They must be retained and their significant attributes conserved. Adaptation and/or interpretation should only be undertaken where significant layout, elements and/or fabric is altered or missing.These spaces should not be subdivided as this would detract from their integrity. |\n| High | Low - These spaces and elements play an important role in strengthening and supporting the significance of the place. They should be retained and conserved. Generally,(as for exceptional), there is some allowance for adaptation where this is in accordance with overall significance, intactness/integrity, and use. New elements may be introduced provided they respect the significant attributes of the spaces. |\n| Moderate | Moderate - These spaces and elements retain some integrity but are of lesser significance. They play a moderate role in supporting the significance of the place and should be retained and conserved where possible. Adaptation and/or alteration is permissible. New openings and new walls/partitions may be introduced. |\n| Low | High - These spaces and elements have only some significance and should be retained and conserved where possible. They may be adapted, altered or removed. |\n| Intrusive | High - These spaces or elements are considered intrusive. Remove/modify to reduce adverse impacts. |","sortOrder":122},{"sectionNumber":"5.4.3 Contributory elements and signific","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.4.3 Contributory elements and significance grading","content":"### 5.4.3 Contributory elements and significance grading\n\nThe contributory elements and fabric that comprises the identified significance are summarised in \nTable 5‑3\\. A detailed room by room is included in Volume 2, Appendix H.","sortOrder":123},{"sectionNumber":"5.4.4 Significance grading of landscape ","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.4.4 Significance grading of landscape elements","content":"### 5.4.4 Significance grading of landscape elements\n\nTable 5‑4: Significance grading of landscape elements (updated AECOM, 2023)\n\n| Site Component | Significance grading |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------- |\n| Evidence of 19th-Century earthworks | High |\n| Seat carved out of rock | High |\n| Stone steps | Low/Moderate |\n| Concrete steps to marine precinct | Low |\n| Metal barriers and barbed wire fence at marine precinct | Intrusive |\n| Iron pipe balustrading | Intrusive |\n| Lighting fixtures | Low |\n| Large water storage tank | Low |\n| Urns | Moderate |\n| Stone benches | Low/Intrusive |","sortOrder":124},{"sectionNumber":"5.4.5 Significance grading of vegetation","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.4.5 Significance grading of vegetation","content":"### 5.4.5 Significance grading of vegetation\n\nTable 5‑5: Significance grading of vegetation elements at Kirribilli House (location is shown in Figure 5‑57) (updated AECOM, 2023)\n\n```html\n

Location

Common Name

Scientific Name

High significance

3

Port Jackson fig

Ficus rubiginosa

4

Tree gardenia

Rothmannia globosa

5

Silky Oak

Grevillea robusta

7

Jacaranda

Jacaranda mimosifolia

8

Camellia

Camellia cv

9

Lemon-scented myrtle

Backhousia ciriodora

10

Giant bird-of-paradise

Strelitzia nicolai

11

Himalayan cedar

Cedrus deodara (now removed 2015)

12

Firewheel tree

Stenocarpus sinuatus

13

Lilli Pilli

Syzgium luehmannii?

16

Hill’s fig tree

Ficus macrocarpa var. Hillii

17

Mexican fan balm

Washingtonia robusta

18

Senegal date palm

Phoenix reclinata

19

Coastal honeysuckle

Banksia integrifolia

21

Succulents

Yucca, Agave or Fucraea

23

Jelly palm

Butia capitata

24

Bangalow palm

Archontophoenix cunninghamiana

25

Bull bay

Magnolia grandiflora

26

Frangipanni

Pumeria rubra cv

Moderate significance

27

Lemons (incl ‘Meyer’)

Citrus limon cvv

28

Liquidambar

Liquidambar styraciflua

29

Cumquat

Fortunella sp.

30

Chinese hibiscus

Hibiscus rosa-sinesis

31

Kentia palm

Howea forsteriana

32

Cape Honeysuckle

Plumbago capensis

35

Bay tree

Laurus nobilis

36

Rose

Rosa ‘Cecile Brunner’

37

Magnolia

Michelia yunnanense (syn. Magnolia yunnanense)

38

Camelia

Camellia cvv

Low significance

41

Jacaranda

Jacaranda mimosifolia

46

Mock orange

Pittosporum undulatum

47

Frangipani

Plumeria rubra cv

\n```","sortOrder":125},{"sectionNumber":"5.4.6 Significance grading diagrams","sectionType":"division","heading":"5.4.6 Significance grading diagrams","content":"### 5.4.6 Significance grading diagrams","sortOrder":126},{"sectionNumber":"6.0","sectionType":"part","heading":"Heritage Risk Assessment","content":"Figure 5 63: Significance grading Ground floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 5‑58: Significance grading First floor plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 5‑59: Significance grading Roof plan – Refer to Volume 3\n\nFigure 5‑60: Significance grading Section – Refer to Volume 3\n\n| Figure 5‑61: Significance grading North elevation (Design 5, 2010) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Figure 5‑62: Significance grading South elevation (Design 5, 2010) |\n\n| Figure 5‑63: Significance grading East elevation (Design 5, 2010) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Figure 5‑64: Significance grading West elevation (Design 5, 2010) |\n\nFigure 5‑65: Significance grading Garage – Volume 3\n\n \n\n# 6.0 Heritage Risk Assessment\n\n## 6.1 Objectives\n\nThe objectives and goals of the future site management are to ensure that Kirribilli House and Garden continues to be used for appropriate functions, while ensuring the significant heritage values of the site are conserved.\n\n## 6.2 Description\n\nThis section identifies and rates the current and future risks to the heritage values of the site. \nThe purpose of this risk assessment is to identify policy and guideline requirements for the effective management of the site’s heritage values. It does not conform to a department or Australian standard for risk assessments. Therefore, the risk ratings should only be interpreted as relative indicators of priority, rather than indicative of specific consequences generally associated with a department or Australian standard risk assessment framework. The assessment includes consideration of the current ownership and management strategies as well as potential for future uses. The risks are categorised and recommendations provided as to how the risks can be practically addressed.\n\n### 6.2.1 Risk Assessment Methodology\n\nTable 6-1Table 6‑1 provides the likelihood rating matrix, while\n\nTable 6‑2 outlines the consequence descriptions and\n\nTable 6‑3 summarises these two matrices into a risk rating.\n\nTable 6‑1 Likelihood rating matrix (assessment on the probability of the risk occurring)\n\n| Rating | Descriptors (Probability Level Descriptors) |\n| -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Almost Certain | Expected to occur in most circumstancesGuide: Is expected to occur multiple times within a year or incident is clearly imminent |\n| Likely | Will probably occur in most circumstancesGuide: Is expected to occur approximately once per year |\n| Possible | Could occur at some timeGuide: Likely to occur approximately once every 5 years |\n| Unlikely | Not expected to occurGuide: Likely to occur approximately once every 5 – 10 years |\n| Rare | Exceptional circumstances onlyGuide: Likely to occur with less frequency than once every 10 years |\n\nTable 6‑2 Consequence Descriptions\n\n| Consequence | Description |\n| ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Severe | Heritage Listed Assets or Areas: Irreversible and extensive damage is caused toa World Heritage Listed Area, a CHL Site, a NHL Site, or a RNE Site |\n| Major | Heritage Assets or Areas (not listed): Irreversible and extensive damage is caused toa non-Heritage listed area or asset which has heritage valuesORHeritage Listed Assets or Areas: Significant damage is caused to a Heritage Listed area or asset that involves either extensive remediation or will take more than 10 years to recover |\n| Moderate | Moderate damage to the environment or a heritage listed asset or area, which is repairable. The resource or asset will take up to 10 years to recover |\n| Minor | Minor damage to the environment or heritage asset or area that is immediately contained on-site. It will take less than two years for the resource or asset to fully recover or it will only require minor repairORDisturbance to scarce or sensitive environmental or heritage resources |\n| Insignificant | Negligible damage that is contained on-siteANDThe damage is fully recoverable with no permanent effect on the environment or the asset. It will take less than six months for the resource to fully recover |\n\nTable 6‑3 Risk Management Framework Matrix\n\n```html\n

Likelihood (Probability Levels)

Consequence (Impact Levels)

Insignificant

Minor

Moderate

Major

Severe

Almost Certain

Moderately Low

Moderate

High

Very High

Very High

Likely

Moderately Low

Moderate

High

High

Very High

Possible

Moderately Low

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Unlikely

Very Low

Moderately Low

Moderate

Moderate

High

Rare

Very Low

Moderately Low

Moderately Low

Moderate

Moderate

\n```\n\nThe Table 6‑4 Risk Assessment identifies the risks to Kirribilli House and Garden and assesses the likelihood of each risk and proposes mitigation and management measures to reduce the severity of this risk. These risks are incorporated into the conservation policies in Section 7.0 Managing heritage values.","sortOrder":127},{"sectionNumber":"6.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Objectives","content":"## 6.1 Objectives\n\nThe objectives and goals of the future site management are to ensure that Kirribilli House and Garden continues to be used for appropriate functions, while ensuring the significant heritage values of the site are conserved.","sortOrder":128},{"sectionNumber":"6.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Description","content":"## 6.2 Description\n\nThis section identifies and rates the current and future risks to the heritage values of the site. \nThe purpose of this risk assessment is to identify policy and guideline requirements for the effective management of the site’s heritage values. It does not conform to a department or Australian standard for risk assessments. Therefore, the risk ratings should only be interpreted as relative indicators of priority, rather than indicative of specific consequences generally associated with a department or Australian standard risk assessment framework. The assessment includes consideration of the current ownership and management strategies as well as potential for future uses. The risks are categorised and recommendations provided as to how the risks can be practically addressed.","sortOrder":129},{"sectionNumber":"6.2.1 Risk Assessment Methodology","sectionType":"division","heading":"6.2.1 Risk Assessment Methodology","content":"### 6.2.1 Risk Assessment Methodology\n\nTable 6-1Table 6‑1 provides the likelihood rating matrix, while\n\nTable 6‑2 outlines the consequence descriptions and\n\nTable 6‑3 summarises these two matrices into a risk rating.\n\nTable 6‑1 Likelihood rating matrix (assessment on the probability of the risk occurring)\n\n| Rating | Descriptors (Probability Level Descriptors) |\n| -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Almost Certain | Expected to occur in most circumstancesGuide: Is expected to occur multiple times within a year or incident is clearly imminent |\n| Likely | Will probably occur in most circumstancesGuide: Is expected to occur approximately once per year |\n| Possible | Could occur at some timeGuide: Likely to occur approximately once every 5 years |\n| Unlikely | Not expected to occurGuide: Likely to occur approximately once every 5 – 10 years |\n| Rare | Exceptional circumstances onlyGuide: Likely to occur with less frequency than once every 10 years |\n\nTable 6‑2 Consequence Descriptions\n\n| Consequence | Description |\n| ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Severe | Heritage Listed Assets or Areas: Irreversible and extensive damage is caused toa World Heritage Listed Area, a CHL Site, a NHL Site, or a RNE Site |\n| Major | Heritage Assets or Areas (not listed): Irreversible and extensive damage is caused toa non-Heritage listed area or asset which has heritage valuesORHeritage Listed Assets or Areas: Significant damage is caused to a Heritage Listed area or asset that involves either extensive remediation or will take more than 10 years to recover |\n| Moderate | Moderate damage to the environment or a heritage listed asset or area, which is repairable. The resource or asset will take up to 10 years to recover |\n| Minor | Minor damage to the environment or heritage asset or area that is immediately contained on-site. It will take less than two years for the resource or asset to fully recover or it will only require minor repairORDisturbance to scarce or sensitive environmental or heritage resources |\n| Insignificant | Negligible damage that is contained on-siteANDThe damage is fully recoverable with no permanent effect on the environment or the asset. It will take less than six months for the resource to fully recover |\n\nTable 6‑3 Risk Management Framework Matrix\n\n```html\n

Likelihood (Probability Levels)

Consequence (Impact Levels)

Insignificant

Minor

Moderate

Major

Severe

Almost Certain

Moderately Low

Moderate

High

Very High

Very High

Likely

Moderately Low

Moderate

High

High

Very High

Possible

Moderately Low

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Unlikely

Very Low

Moderately Low

Moderate

Moderate

High

Rare

Very Low

Moderately Low

Moderately Low

Moderate

Moderate

\n```\n\nThe Table 6‑4 Risk Assessment identifies the risks to Kirribilli House and Garden and assesses the likelihood of each risk and proposes mitigation and management measures to reduce the severity of this risk. These risks are incorporated into the conservation policies in Section 7.0 Managing heritage values.","sortOrder":130},{"sectionNumber":"7.0","sectionType":"part","heading":"Managing heritage values","content":"# 7.0 Managing heritage values\n\n## 7.1 Objectives\n\nThis HMP sets out a structure to assist PM&C for the future management of Kirribilli House and Garden are to ensure the operational duties continue to be carried out, while protecting the identified heritage values and achieving EPBC Act compliance. For historic heritage, it is to conserve the heritage significance through retention of buildings, fabric and landscape elements of significance including the preservation of the historical layout.\n\n## 7.2 Opportunities and constraints\n\nOpportunities and constraints arising from the identified heritage significance of a place establish \na baseline from where other issues such as maintenance and owner requirements can be considered. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance and requirements under the CHL.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden displays a high degree of significance due to the following:\n\n As the Official Sydney residence of the Australian Prime Minister since 1957\n The site evidences the early land grants to prominent Sydney residents\n Association with early public campaign to protect harbourside development in the 1920s\n Association with Admiralty House and forming part of a continued landscape that is Kirribilli Point\n The site has rare qualities as a surviving Victorian Rustic Gothic residence in a harbour setting and includes the remains of one of the earliest bathing pools on Sydney Harbour\n The site has representative values for its Victorian Rustic Gothic style of house and garden and\n The site is important to the people of Australia and is associated with various prime ministers, dignitaries, and significant people in the community.\n\nOpportunities arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Maintain a high quality of care and management of the site\n Interpreting the heritage values of the site including the different phases of development\n Presenting a cohesive landscape of Kirribilli Point that includes both Kirribilli and Admiralty House\n Potential for development or rebuilding of areas that are poorly presented and placing unnecessary pressures on security and privacy of the site and\n Review and re-design of the garden to emphasise heritage significance and introduce other elements of significance of the site.\n\nConstraints arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Operational, security and privacy requirements from the use of the site as a place of residence of the Prime Minister and visits by dignitaries\n Physical constraints of the site for development and\n Maintenance requirements and upkeep of the site resulting from age, building materials, siting, and damp issues of the site.\n\n## 7.3 Planned Works\n\nThe following works are currently planned for this site:\n\n Repairs to the garden paving\n Seawall stabilisation\n\nAll works will be undertaken in accordance with Policy 7 of this HMP.\n\n## 7.4 Policies and guidelines\n\nThe role of the conservation policies in this HMP is to provide specific guidelines for the conservation, on-going care, development and use of Kirribilli House and Garden so that its cultural significance is appropriately maintained, enhanced, and interpreted. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance.\n\n## 7.5 Management Policies\n\n### 7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP\n\nWhilst Kirribilli House and Garden remains a Commonwealth property, this HMP must be reviewed at least once every five years in accordance with Section 341X (1) of the EPBC Act. The review should assess the content of the plan and determine its effectiveness in protecting the heritage values of the place and make recommendations for updating or re-writing the plan as required. The review is to be undertaken with assistance from a heritage specialist and be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and Regulations for the review of management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places. The review is to focus on amending responsibilities, include commentary on any works undertaken since the last HMP review, and consider any changes or planned changes of use.\n\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | The conservation policies set out in this plan should be adopted by PM&C and implementedRelevant policies should be cross referenced to other management documentsA copy of the HMP should be retained on siteThis HMP must be updated every five years by PM&C with the assistance of a heritage specialist to ensure it remains relevant to the use of Kirribilli House and Garden and to ensure statutory compliance is maintainedThis HMP should also be updated after any significant changes to the site have occurred. At a minimum, the review must:Assess whether the plan is consistent with the Commonwealth Heritage management principles in force at the timeAssess whether the plan is effective in protecting and conserving the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenMake recommendations for the improved protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenThe listed Commonwealth Heritage values will be monitored, reviewed and reported on annually as part of the PM&C Annual Reporting Cycle. This information will be provided to DCCEEW every three years, as outlined in the PM&C Heritage Strategy. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth asset on Commonwealth land within NSW, managed by PM&C. If the asset leaves Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), ongoing heritage protection would be required under S341ZE of the EPBC Act. An update and revision of this HMP would then be required to accurately consider and reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements.\n\nResponsibility for undertaking the review of the HMP should fall to the new owner and should be undertaken within six months of the sale, and/or prior to the undertaking of any changes to Kirribilli House and Garden. To ensure that this requirement is recognised by the new owner it should form part of the sale/transfer documents between PM&C and the new owner.\n\nUnder S341ZE of the EPBC Act, PM&C must notify the Minister of the proposed divestment and establish an appropriate mechanism to protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place during the sale/transfer process and after the property has left Commonwealth control (such as a covenant \nin the sale/transfer documents, or equivalent arrangements).\n\nA copy of the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment as NSW heritage legislation would apply in the absence of Commonwealth ownership. The heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden should therefore be nominated by PM&C for formal protection under the NSW heritage system in the event of divestment.\n\nConsultation with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment will be necessary at least 12 months prior to the property leaving Commonwealth ownership, to ensure the appropriate nominations are in place to provide ongoing heritage protection. PM&C should also consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and submit the consultation outcomes to Heritage NSW.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been assessed as having outstanding heritage values and thus potentially reaching the threshold for inclusion on the NHL. Along with inclusion on the NSW SHR, a NHL listing would provide an additional layer of protection of the heritage values of the site. It is recommended that the site should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL.\n\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C must notify the Minister responsible for heritage of the intention to divest or lease the site, in accordance with the timeframes specified under S341ZE of the EPBC ActThis HMP should be reviewed to reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements. The HMP should be updated within six months of a Change of Ownership or Lease agreementIf the site is to leave Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and EnvironmentConsultation should occur with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the consultation outcomes submitted to Heritage NSWKirribilli House and Garden should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL and NSW SHR. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades\n\nThis HMP was prepared using a range of expert advice. For successful long-term interpretation and implementation of this Plan, continuity of competent advice is important to avoid implications from \nill-advised decisions.\n\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | Persons with suitable expertise and experience in conservation projects should be engaged for the resolution of conservation issues, as well as for input into the design and administration of conservation work on the place. Expert persons may include heritage architects, heritage landscape architects, heritage consultants, traditional (stone/slate/plaster) material contractors and arborists. |\n| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.4 Training and resources\n\nOccupants, staff, managers and contractors should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. Contractors should be given a copy of the Heritage Induction Training Manual provided in Appendix P.\n\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | All personnel on site should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and GardenA copy of the Heritage Induction Training Materials should be provided to contractors undertaking works on site. |\n| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities\n\nOwnership and property management of Kirribilli House and Garden including heritage management and Capital Works is managed by PM&C HOST. Other stakeholder management roles and responsibilities are set out in Section 1.6.\n\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders should be familiar with the roles and responsibilities of each agency. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping\n\nWorks undertaken to modify elements of Kirribilli House and Garden need to be approved by PM&C. Works may include:\n\n- determining if EPBC Act referral is necessary\n- determining if a HIA is required for proposed works\n- design works referencing the HMP\n- engaging a specialist to provide advice and undertake the submission of the draft HIA\n- undertaking EPBC Act self-assessment\n- undertaking consultation with DCCEEW\n- undertaking the attainment of approvals\n- commencement of works\n- documentation of the works.\n\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | All works that are the responsibility of PM&C shall be in accordance with the PM&C approval process included in HOW TO: Procurement Address Heritage Considerations (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023)Implementation of policies and works should be recorded by PM&C and records shall be maintained in the ShareHub systemDetails of day to day property maintenance will be kept by JLL with regular reports provided to PM&C filing on its ShareHub system. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.7 Legislative approvals process\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth property and hence must be managed in accordance with Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations (see Table 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist) and the policies in this HMP. If proposed works are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, approval must be sought through the EPBC Act referral process. The first step in assessing the impact of any proposed works is to prepare a self-assessment, in the format of a Heritage Impact Assessment. This should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist. If the self-assessment finds the action will or might have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage listed values, the action will need to be referred to the Minister for Environment and Water in accordance with Sections 26 and 29 of the EPBC Act. Advice can be sought from DCCEEW on this process and any potential actions. Any proposed works should consider alternatives to minimise impacts to heritage values.\n\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | Kirribilli House and Garden must be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles set out in Schedule 7B of the EPBC RegulationsConsultation should be undertaken early on EPBC Act referrals with DCCEEW heritageApproval should be sought through the EPBC referral processConsideration should be given to alternatives to minimise heritage impacts. |\n| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance\n\nIf compliance with the NCC and DDA to meet health, safety and energy efficiency requirements are likely to have a substantial impact on significant fabric or heritage values. Alternative engineered solutions that minimise impacts should be considered and promoted.\n\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | Compliance with the NCC or DDA should focus on responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect the significance. An alternative engineered solution may need to be sought if deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot be met. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to code compliance should be avoided. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.9 Safety\n\nKirribilli House is required to meet current safety standards as both a workplace and as a building. Measures should be taken to balance the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place with these safety obligations. All buildings and workplaces are required to meet various safety codes, including Kirribilli House. As a workplace, PM&C, with staff at the property, are required to ensure a safe work environment at all times and they must ensure that all incumbents and their families, as well as staff and visitors to the property are aware of any safety risks.\n\n| Policy 9. Safety | PM&C should aim to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code Australia (BCA) when they apply. Any strategies or solutions to make Kirribilli House comply with the BCA requirements should balance the cultural significance of the place with the objectives of the BCA. If conflict occurs, external heritage and architectural advice may be requiredWorks that improve the health and safety of the property are necessary, however they should be planned and designed ina sympathetic manner, so they do not negatively impact the Commonwealth Heritage values of the placeShould there be a conflict between the provision of safety measures and the protection of heritage fabric, safety should be the overriding factor which determines the measures necessaryAlternative solutions and compromises should be pursued wherever possible so that a solution is designed which meets both safety and heritage considerationsIt should be noted however, that whilst the BCA does not affect these items retrospectively, WH&S compliance is a current legislative obligationAn asbestos management plan should be implemented for any remaining asbestos. |\n| ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability\n\nAccess for people with a disability is currently inadequate. Although the DDA is not prescriptive, \nit would be best practice for Kirribilli House to have a policy for providing dignified and easy access. The DDA makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their disability. It is not specifically about buildings, however it has an effect on buildings in which the design and construction prevents access by people with a disability; as the owners of those buildings can be deemed to be discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.\n\n| Policy 10. Access for people with a disability | The following procedure should be applied when considering changes to heritage buildingsReview the significance of the place and identify the elements of greatest significanceUndertake an Access Audit to determine existing and required levels of accessibility; noting that some areas are exempt under the NCCEvaluate access options within a Commonwealth Heritage context. This process includes consultation with authorities and approval of the proposed actionPrepare the access policy or action planImplement the necessary action. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.11 Planning and coordination\n\nProposing ad-hoc changes can have an adverse impact on the significant values of the place. \nOver time, when these ad-hoc measures are undertaken independently, without coordination, \nplanning or expert advice, they can result in compounding adverse impact on the values of the place.\n\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | A coordinated and planned approach is necessary when proposing changes to Kirribilli House and GardenThe proposed activity should be reviewed within a holistic management framework to avoid adverse impacts resulting fromad-hoc measures. |\n| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation\n\nEarly consultation with stakeholders is required to comply with the EPBC Regulations when managing heritage places. The EPBC Act requires public notification of a HMP. This consultation process may be undertaken once a final HMP is available. In accordance with the referral assessment process under the EPBC Act, any proposed action that will impact on the heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden must also be notified for public comment.\n\nWhilst works proposed to Kirribilli House do not need to comply with local planning requirements, \nif significant works are proposed, it is recommended that North Sydney Council be informed.\n\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | Relevant stakeholder consultation should be undertaken early as part of managing the heritage place, allowing sufficient time for input in accordance with the EPBC ActThe HMP must be available for public notificationAny proposed action that impacts the heritage values of Kirribilli House must be notified for public commentIf substantial works are proposed, North Sydney Council should be informed as a good neighbour policy. |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\nPlease note that as per Section 1.8.1, public notification and exhibition of the draft HMP were carried out in 2023, prior to the finalisation of this document.\n\n \n\n## 7.6 Security\n\n### 7.6.1 Security and privacy\n\nManagement of Kirribilli House and Garden requires a high level of security and privacy.\n\n| Policy 13. Security and privacy | Elements of this HMP will be made available to government departments and external stakeholders on a need-to-know basisSections of the Heritage Induction Training Manual shall be made available to relevant contractors working on the site (see Appendix P) |\n| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.6.2 Security Infrastructure\n\nHome Affairs are responsible for the security infrastructure at Kirribilli House. The Australian Federal Police provide 24-hour physical security for the site. Extenuating circumstances may result in the disturbance of heritage fabric. The security of the property and the people within it will always outweigh any other requirements.\n\n| Policy 14. Security Infrastructure | Security requirements at Kirribilli House are fundamentally important for the safety and functionality of the house and those who work/live thereInterior security measures, such as distress buttons, are a high security priority. For security reasons they need to be placed in prominent, easily reached locations within the rooms, however whenever possible they should not be inserted into significant fabricWhile security is an essential operational requirement, any changes should be implemented in a way that minimises heritage impact where possible. |\n| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n## 7.7 Site-wide policies\n\n### 7.7.1 Conservation principles\n\nThe Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, known as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013), \nis 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. \nThere are seven principles that guide the care of heritage places:\n\n1\\. The place itself is important\n\n2\\. Understand the significance of the place\n\n3\\. Understand the fabric\n\n4\\. Significance should guide decisions\n\n5\\. Do as much as necessary, as little as possible\n\n6\\. Keep records\n\n7\\. Do everything in a logical order.\n\nThe use of the terms, conservation, preservation, reconstruction, adaptation, fabric, maintenance, repair, and compatible use in this report are defined in The Burra Charter.\n\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | Future work on the complex should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and its GuidelinesThe Commonwealth heritage values of the place should be the basis for all future planning and development. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.2 Setting\n\nThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting is a key contributory element to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden and its landmark qualities. The site is part of a continued landscape that includes Admiralty House on Kirribilli Point. Having met CHL Criterion B, D and E that relates to the setting of the place, it is crucial that the policy below be adopted to protect and maintain the CHL values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 16. Setting | The landmark qualities of Kirribilli House and Garden should be retained and protectedThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting should be retained, protected and promoted. This includes such key elements as the Victorian picturesque qualities (sweeping lawn, meandering paths, dramatic views and wild character), topography, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, harbour views and access to waterwayRetain and protect the continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. |\n| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.3 Streetscape\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to Kirribilli Conservation Area, which has been characterised by a mix of small, medium and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and contemporary residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | Kirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to the Kirribilli Conservation Area, hence contributory elements, including Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture, principal elevations, established garden, integration to topography and homogeneous scale, should all be retained and protected. |\n| ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.4 Significant views\n\nKirribilli House within Kirribilli Point forms part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape which is appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from Sydney Opera House, Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point and distant views from Bradley’s Head.\n\nThere is a harmonious relationship between the house, garden and the wider landscape which is the harbour setting. The site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden which include panoramas, framed and filtered views. This contributes to the picturesque setting and is part of the early planning of the site that evidence the key period of significance. Significant views identified have been included in Section 3.2.1 and 3.6 and are defined in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.\n\nFigure 7‑2.\n\n| Policy 18. Significant views | Significant views to and from Kirribilli House and Garden should be maintained and protectedThese include but are not limited to those identified in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.Figure 7‑2. |\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of the harbour near Kirribilli House outlining the significant views](image.178.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑1: Significant views to Kirribilli House from various vantage points of Sydney Harbour (maps.six.nsw.gov.au\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of Kirribilli House grounds highlighting the significant views seen from the property](image.179.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑2: Significant views from Kirribilli House and Garden (maps.six.nsw.gov.au)\n\n### 7.7.5 Heritage curtilage\n\nKirribilli House retains its original physical curtilage which is defined by the existing site boundary. \nThe site has maintained the early subdivision from Admiralty House estate and sold in 1854 to \nAdolph Feez who built the house in 1856. The earliest access to the site is likely to have been from the harbour and the earliest plans included boat access on the eastern boundary. The earliest plans also show access from Kirribilli Avenue.\n\nA visual curtilage can be extended to include vistas from the harbour and beyond from various vantage points.\n\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | The physical curtilage defined by the existing site boundary including access to the foreshore and Kirribilli Avenue should be retained and protectedA visual curtilage that includes vantage points of Kirribilli House and Garden from the harbourside should be retained protected. |\n| ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.6 Masterplans\n\nKirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House are major elements of Kirribilli Point that form part of the continuous Sydney Harbour landscape. There are both built and natural elements from both sites that are historically significant which should be preserved and promoted. Developing a masterplan will assist in identifying areas for future development, planning and maintenance of the site and minimise any detrimental effects from ad-hoc activities.\n\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | When opportunity presents, undertake one masterplan for Kirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House to guide future works. Include a study of the historical development of the site architectural style, massing, geometry/axis, vistas, and circulation (vehicular/pedestrian) studies. The plan should include a review of existing infrastructure/services and develop a site wide methodology for implementing new work. The plan should identify areas of future development including scale, height, massing and materials for potential future development. The masterplan should include a landscape masterplan that incorporates both sites as one landscape element of Kirribilli PointWhen opportunity presents, provide a detailed and updated version of the current Landscape Management Plan for Kirribilli House(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) to include the heritage significance of areas of the garden, identify specific historic elements relating to significance, consolidate information fromGeoff Britton’s landscape assessment (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H) and the AECOM Tree Survey, 2023Using the above information, compile a detailed landscape design for the garden with clear heritage and design principles for each garden areaThe landscape masterplan/updated Landscape Management Plan should study water drainage and succession planting to re-establish the lost tree canopies. It should also identify plant species on site that have high water consumption and propose alternative sub-species (whilst retaining the heritage values) that are more resilient. It should also consider reducing the ongoing erosion of the sandstone cliffA qualified heritage architect, heritage landscape architect and relevant service consultants should be engaged to undertake this workThis HMP should be updated in the next review to include findings from the masterplan and the updated Landscape Management Plan. |\n| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.7 Grounds generally\n\nThe garden at Kirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Vestiges of the pre-European landscape, Phase 1 –19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the grounds generally.\n\n| Policy 21. Grounds generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:- Vestiges of the pre-European landscape evidenced in the indigenous vegetation, rock outcrops, and sandstone cliffs, reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline- Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of thePeople-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque qualities, sweeping lawn, meandering stone paths, terracing, dry stone walling, fencing, dramatic views(panoramic, framed and filtered) and floristic (leaf form, colour, and texture).- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the plantings associated with significant people- Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the instruction of terracing, steps, trees, and plants (exotic and native)Retain a high quality of garden maintenance by engaging trade professionals with proven experience in horticulture, garden maintenance and heritage gardensEngage arborists as required to manage the health and safety of older treesPrior to removal and pruning of trees consider impacts to significant views (panoramas, framed and filtered)Do not introduce new structures in the garden except for temporary structures such as marquees and climbing framesDo not introduce new garden beds or new species of plants to the site unless implemented by a landscape masterplan or management planKeep a record of plants that have been part of memorials, functions, planted or gifted by dignitariesBuilt memorials should be avoided in the garden to retain the Victorian style and residential significance of the place. Australian artwork/sculptures may be incorporated if they are sympathetic to the significance of the placeOutdoor furniture, fixtures and fittings should be sympathetic of the heritage values of the place. Retain cast iron urns and sundialsRetain and repair as necessary the boundary fences to the sitePrior to implementing the Landscape Management Plan(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) for detailed works to hard and soft landscaping, resolve the inconsistencies of heritage landscape principles from Geoff Britton’s assessments updated information from AECOM’s Tree Survey 2023 through a landscape masterplan/detailed management plan or landscape design. |\n| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.8 House generally\n\nKirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 \n(Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the house generally.\n\n| Policy 22. House generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque setting, modest scale, irregular massing, steeply pitched gabled roofs with highly decorated bargeboards, prominent gable, gabled dormer, slate roof, textured masonry walling, bay windows, timber verandah and tall medieval looking chimneys, fireplaces, timber joinery- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the single storey addition (wet), bay window replacements to double hung window, gabled roof, and room to first floor, hallway widened, addition of bathrooms, garagePhase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the service wing, single storey additions to either side of porch, replacement of shutters, verandah infill for storeroom, timber valence reconstruction, security screens, eastern gable windows, main stair reconstruction, and conservation worksConserve and promote the relationship of the house to the garden such as verandahs and garden elementsRetain and protect the internal arrangement of spaces, inter-relationships of rooms and volumes of spacesRetain and conserve the hierarchy of public and private spacesThe house may be altered to suit the function as an Official Prime Minister’s Residence whilst respecting the heritage values of the placeNew work should not replicate previous styles but be of a contemporary style and sympathetic to the heritage values of the placeReconstruction works should be identifiable through subtle variation in detail and should be dated. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.9 Maintenance and repair\n\nSystematic maintenance will conserve significant fabric longer for the ultimate benefit of future generations. A site wide maintenance plan is provided in Section 8.0.\n\n| Policy 23. Maintenance | Implement the General Maintenance Plan included in this HMP in accordance with the policies contained in this HMPThe maintenance plan should be adopted by JLL under their contractual obligationsThe maintenance plan should be integrated into the PM&C asset maintenance processes. A Heritage Asset works/maintenance record should also be prepared and maintained for each activityPrior to undertaking any maintenance works, confirmed that the activity proposed is maintenance and complies with the policies an in this HMP. This should be confirmed by PM&CA dedicated budget should be implemented to guide on-going maintenance work on the significant elements identified in this HMPAdequate funding arrangements for maintenance and urgent repairs identified in this HMP should be put in placeIncrease rate of maintenance following inclement weather such as high winds and storms. Inspect all weatherproofing elements of the buildingsEnsure all contractors are made aware of the heritage values of the place by providing the Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P) to all contractors on site.Undertake a structural condition assessment of the site every five years by a qualified structural engineer. |\n| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.10 Emergency Works\n\nEmergency works should always be undertaken as a priority, wherever possible they should seek to be completely reversible. Emergency works (such as rectifying storm damage, repairing water leaks or attending electrical malfunctions) are a necessary aspect of managing the maintenance, safety and condition of Kirribilli House. By their very nature, they often have to be undertaken quickly with little planning. If works occur (due to safety or security reasons) that are not sympathetic, such work should be ‘undone’ as soon as practicable.\n\n| Policy 24. Emergency Works | Emergency works must always be undertaken as quickly as possible.Any emergency works should be recorded by PM&C, with the issue, condition prior to repairs and condition after repairs (including photographs) recorded as a minimum.PM&C, as the agency responsible for contractors carrying out emergency works to the fixed building elements, should be notified as soon as possible to inspect the temporary repairs and decide on a more permanent solution.All emergency works should be reversible whenever possible. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience\n\nSustainable and resilient methods are required to manage the adverse effects of climate change. The skilled craftsmanship and composition of old materials result in heritage buildings that are durable. The re-use of existing buildings and fabric reduces the embodied energy required for new development. Hence, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings should be considered as a first measure before new development is considered. An energy audit/thermal assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden will identify areas energy expenditure.\n\nThe Australian Public Service (APS) must comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy. APS Net Zero will be achieved by actively reducing emissions from APS operations as well as through offsets. This initiative will also encourage transparency by requiring Commonwealth entities to publicly report on their emissions, whilst supporting the uplift of climate capability across the APS.\n\nExtreme weather patterns in the future mean that there will be periods of extreme drought and wet weather as well as erratic events and increased climate induced disasters. Environmental factors specific to Kirribilli House and Garden in the future include:\n\n- Increase in ambient humidity levels and condensation within buildings leading to mould and damp\n- Dry weather patterns creating shrinking of fabric and cracks to structure\n- Intense rainfalls and storms causing inefficient water drainage from buildings and areas of the garden, damage to property\n- Long periods of rain\n- The existing rising damp conditions to worsen.\n\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience(a) Assessments/audits | Comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy.Should the opportunity arise, undertake the following assessments/audits:- Undertake an initial and periodic energy, water and thermal comfort assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden to identify areas of deficiencies, ideally over a year (to account for season)- Assess the existing ventilation in buildings and implement methods of improvement to minimise humidity in buildings e.g., sub floor ventilation- Assess rain and surface water runoff across the whole site and in buildings. This may include installing sensors to measure ground moisture. Implement improvements especially during torrential rainfall events- Assess the viability of measures to reduce water and energy consumption in the garden (additional rainwater tanks, automatic watering, solar powered garden lights, drought tolerant plants and grasses). |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (b) Implementation | Implement low impact measures sympathetic to heritage values such as upgrades to fittings and fixtures (e.g., light fittings, water closets, taps) and services (air conditioning units, gas fireplaces)Increase the rate of maintenance to existing buildings during periods of extreme weather eventsPromote adaptive reuse of buildings. Demonstrate and exhaust all other measures to ensure existing buildings are used efficiently prior to constructing new buildings and structuresSolar panels should be avoided on the main house structure to avoid impact on significant views of the house. Solar panels may be installed on the laundry building if an HIA has determined that physical and visual impacts are minimal. The works will require permission from OOSGGNew work/developments should incorporate sustainable design and construction methodsUndertake any catch-up maintenance activities. Ensure that cyclical maintenance and emergency maintenance are activated immediately. |\n| (c) Management plans | Develop a Sustainability Action Plan for the site and include all sustainability measures. Include a risk register and identify risks to heritage elements including loss of heritage significant plant species, loss of lawns, property damage from high winds, erosion impact to garden, risk to heritage fabric from damage, increase in pests and diseases in garden. Include measures to educate staff, contractors on creating an awareness of sustainability issues.Develop and implement a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the site that identifies potential risks to the site and its heritage values to prepare Kirribilli House and Garden for future events. This plan should identify elements of the site that maybe sacrificial losses. |\n\n### 7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management\n\nIt is recognised that Kirribilli House and Garden is located within a larger cultural landscape of high social, cultural, and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples and will apply a precautionary approach to the management of heritage values.\n\n| Policy 26. General | The overarching aim for the management of the Indigenous heritage values should be done in partnership with Indigenous stakeholders.Consider the preparation of an interpretation strategy covering intangible Indigenous heritage values in the context of the broader intangible cultural landscape. This should be undertaken with Indigenous consultation.Indigenous stakeholders should be consulted regarding any potential impacts if any Indigenous heritage values are identified in relation to Kirribilli House and Garden. Consultation, in all instances, should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Ask First Guidelines.Should a plan be formulated for the management of the garden, there may be an opportunity for consideration to be given to Indigenous plantings to be added to the existing landscape, to allow for interpretation of the history of the location. Such a garden plan should be guided by the findings of the interpretation strategy and the consultation outcomes of the intangible cultural landscape values. |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nPrior to commencement of any new development activities/works within Kirribilli House and Garden, all relevant site personnel and contractors should be made aware of Indigenous heritage values. The discovery of unexpected Indigenous heritage should trigger ”Stop Works” as detailed in Policy 27.\n\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | Unexpected Indigenous Heritage Finds Procedure (excluding human skeletal remains)1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the artefact/site must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing).2. Notification - The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management about the discovery and seek advice.3. Impact Assessment - If required, undertake an assessment for the proposed activity/works in accordance with relevant heritage guidelines.4. Impact Mitigation - Implement management actions detailed in the assessment.5. Reporting - Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the new site and any implemented management actions.Unexpected Human Skeletal Remains Procedure - For any confirmed or suspected human skeletal remains, the following procedure should be followed:1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the remains must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing). The remains must not be left unattended.2. Notification: The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management of the discovery. They, in turn, must notify the Coroner’s Office and the Military Police, who will notify appropriate local authorities. If it is confirmed by these authorities that the remains are Indigenous Ancestral Remains, they should, as soon as practicable, report the existence of the remains to Indigenous stakeholders and relevant State-based heritage authorities.3. Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Management should consult with Indigenous stakeholders and an appropriately experienced and qualified heritage consultant. In general, the first management option should be avoidance of the location. If this is not possible, then relocation of the remains to a designated keeping place, or reburial at a location near to the original (but within an area that will not be impacted) should be undertaken. The wishes of the Indigenous stakeholders should guide these actions. The excavation and handling of any Indigenous skeletal remains should follow best practice scientific guidelines (e.g., NSW Heritage Office, 1998).4. GEMS Update:- Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the remains and implemented management actions. |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nConsider the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process, acknowledging security and safety constraints.\n\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | Kirribilli House and Garden is an active, high security area with access needing to be arranged in advance through appropriate personnel, with all visitors subject to security clearance and induction processes. Existing security and induction procedures notwithstanding, should Indigenous values be identified in the future, the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process should then be developed, which could potentially provide approval for on-site cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies. In general, should any interested Indigenous community members wish to enter for cultural reasons, they should contact the appropriate management contact who should facilitate the visit. |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nIndigenous stakeholders should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any public disclosures pertaining to the Indigenous heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | The investigation of intangible Indigenous cultural heritage values, and in the event that finds occur during future works, may result in the identification of Indigenous values relating to Kirribilli House and Garden. Should information regarding such Indigenous heritage values be proposed for release into the public domain, Indigenous stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on any disclosures prior to their release. All comments received should be considered and inform the final disseminated disclosure. |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.13 Services\n\nThe insertion of any new services should be carefully considered and consider the original structure and fabric of the heritage buildings to minimise impact.\n\n| Policy 30. Services | Services should be minimised in their extent and carefully planned to minimise damage to significant fabricNew, replacement and upgraded services should use existing conduits and ducts wherever possibleCeiling-mounted fittings, such as detectors and light fittings with minimal fixings are recommendedSurface-mounted vertical risers are permitted, provided their style and finish is compatible with the cultural significance of the space through which they pass. Wherever possible, vertical risers should be in minor spaces of least cultural significanceLight fittings and electrical accessories (switch plates, GPOs) should not be period reproductions but discrete modern fixturesAir-conditioning units should be discreet in location and appearance. Any associated works should be positioned to avoid damage to significant fabricExternal air-conditioning units should be concealed from view, not located on the front façade of the building, and positioned to avoid damage to significant external fabric. |\n| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring\n\nAreas of high archaeological potential have been identified at the subject site. If excavation is proposed in these areas, further investigation by a suitably qualified archaeologist would be required prior to commencement of works.\n\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | Any excavation in areas of high archaeological potential should be carried out under archaeological supervision by a qualified archaeologistIf underfloor deposits are planned to be removed, engage an archaeologist to remove and assess to determine the presence of any artefactsIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, implement an unexpected finds procedure must be followed (see Figure 4‑27). |\n| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.15 Carparking and circulation\n\nThe site has limited potential for incorporating carparking and vehicular access without impacting on the garden setting of the site. The driveway loop originates from the Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 \n(Official Residence of the Prime Minister) and is graded as an item of moderate significance, \nhence may be modified for future requirements.\n\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | An increase to the number of carparking spaces currently provided is not recommended i.e., spaces for permanent garaged vehicles and informal parking of cars on drivewayThe driveway loop may be modified for future carparking and vehicular access but must have little to no impact on the garden setting. |\n| ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.16 Public access\n\nThere is limited public access due to security and privacy reasons. However, the site holds many functions where large number of people can attend the site at any one time. Open days of the house and garden are also held. It is important that the heritage significance of the site is communicated, and significant fabric is protected during these times by implementing a Visitor Management Strategy.\n\n| Policy 33. Public access | Undertake and implement a Visitor Management Strategy for the site.Public open days should occur every year however the level at which the property is open to the public should be decided in conjunction with the incumbentsAt a minimum the grounds should be open for inspection during open daysCare should be taken to protect artworks and furniture during open daysInterpretative materials should be available on the day |\n| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.17 Archival recording\n\nAn archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved for removal should be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage specialist in accordance with the Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, \nrevised 2006) guideline. The record should aim to capture the item prior to, during and after the proposed works. A copy of the archival record be provided to the local council and the NLA.\n\nCurrently there are several sites that hold vast amount of historical information relating to the site including, State Records, NLA, State Library of NSW, Stanton Library and PM&C. This information should be consolidated, and a central repository of information should be established.\n\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | Undertake an archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved to be demolished. The works should comply with Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, revised 2006) guidelineProvide a copy of the archival record to PM&C, council and NLA(with redacted information on security)Establish a central repository of information of historical data. |\n| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.18 Movable items\n\nThere are several movable items associated with Kirribilli House and Garden. These include a wide variety of furniture, art and memorabilia predominantly lent and managed by the Australian Fund (see detailed identification, care and management set out in the catalogue by Australian Fund, The Australian Fund, 2022). Additional items found on site should be assessed and recorded by suitably qualified persons and conserved on site or protected in off-site storage.\n\n| Policy 35. Movable items | The existing management practice and collaboration with Australian Fund and PM&C should continueIf additional moveable items are found, they should be identified and assessed by a suitably qualified person and conserved on site, or protected in an off-site storage facilityMovable items should be assessed for suitability for incorporation in an Interpretation Plan for the site. |\n| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.19 Heritage interpretation\n\nThere is an opportunity for the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden to be promoted to the public by undertaking an Interpretation Strategy. The strategy should be prepared by a heritage consultant and appropriately funded. This strategy should include consideration of security and safety requirements whilst communicating the heritage significance of the site.\n\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | An Interpretation Strategy should be prepared for Kirribilli House and Garden by a suitably qualified heritage consultantThe Interpretation Strategy should consider privacy, safety, and security requirements of the siteConsider the use of wide range of media, digital, paper, physical (signage, fabric) and sensory elements (e.g., textured materials in the garden and soundscapes)Include associations with significant people for the house as well as the garden (include signage adjacent to significant plants).Consider displaying historic photographsIncorporate any oral histories (e.g., descendants of the Feez family, former Prime Ministers)Include Indigenous heritage values and consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal parties.If there is an opportunity, undertake an Indigenous Intangible Cultural Values study and to incorporate reference to Indigenous past in the garden through a cohesive approach.An Indigenous Interpretation Strategy may be prepared as a separate documentCreate a unified and consistent style, sympathetic to the heritage aesthetic of the site, for interpretation of the site e.g., style of fonts and colours for signs. |\n| ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.20 Signage and external lighting\n\nThere is limited signage on site that is in keeping with the residential character of the site. There is also a mixture of light fittings in the house and garden with majority of fittings originating from the 1957 modifications and some reproduced Victorian lamps.\n\nSignage and external lighting can add to the character of the site. Signage and lighting should not adversely affect the significant heritage fabric and overall character of the site. When installing signage, the fixings should be reversible and not damage significant fabric.\n\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | Should the opportunity, arise develop a complex-wide signage and external lighting plan for the site.Signage and lighting should be in harmony with the historic character of the site and compliant with current Australian health and safety standardsFree standing signage systems should be used for major directional signs, with smaller signs applied to selected areas with a minimum of fixingsSigns should not be attached to the brickwork walls of the buildingsIf the opportunity arises, a lighting designer or architect should be engaged to undertake a site wide study of existing lighting to the house and garden, and propose a lighting plan that is a contemporary design and sympathetic to the heritage values of the siteIncorporate sustainable lighting practices. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.8 Contributory elements\n\nContributory elements (tangible and intangible) to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden have been identified in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements. \nThese elements are essential to the significance of the place and should be conserved according to the following policies.\n\n| Policy 38 | |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (1) Curtilage | See policy 7.7.5. |\n| (2) Relationship to Admiralty House | Conserve and protect views to Admiralty House and key elements within its gardenRetain the existing access points at the western boundary. |\n| (3) Views and vistas to Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (4) Views and vistas from Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (5) Pre-European vestiges | Retain and protect features of the pre-European landscape including, plantings, rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs. |\n| (6) Entrance gates, stone walls, and fences | Retain and conserve stone walls and wrought iron gates.Consider replacing the side entry gate to an interpreted detail of the early gate from 1913 (Figure 5-11Figure 5‑6)Fencing to the northern boundary may be altered to interpret earlier detailsThe fencing along the boundary to Admiralty House may be altered to a more open style of fence to interpret the connection between the two sites. |\n\n \n\n| (7) Driveway, driveway loop and entrance forecourt | An entry precinct that is grand and in keeping with the Victorian themed garden style should be retainedPlant species should be sourced from available archival sources of the Victorian eraThe entry drive should not be increased in area for future useAn updated Landscape Management Plan should review the significance of the species of camellias to confirm their association with the work of Professor E G WaterhouseA Landscape Management Plan should seek to undertake further research and gain expert opinion are required to confirm appropriateness of the Jacaranda trees on the site. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (8) Upper eastern grassed banks and terraces | The steep grassed banks should be retained and existing view preserved. |\n| (9) Lower eastern lawn terrace and eastern walk | The steep grassed banks of the lower terrace should be retained as an open space permitting views to the harbour and views to the house from the harbourPlantings to the south should be consistent with the Victorian eraOpportunities for reinstating Indigenous vegetation should be investigated. |\n| (10) Northeast gardens and walks | The sandstone outcrops should be retained and not concealedThe meandering paths should be retainedPlantings should be appropriate to the Victorian era and should also address loss of privacy to the northern boundary from tree lossThe poorly executed sandstone paving on north-eastern and lower grounds should be reviewed. |\n| (11) Northeastern terrace | The stone wall and paving should be reconstructed with a rustic theme, providing a focus for the existing rock outcropCourses should follow the horizontal bias with no vertical elementsPlantings should be consistent with the Victorian era, promote Indigenous vegetation, provide privacy, and retain filtered views. |\n| (12) Clifftop garden | The wild character of the garden should be retained without impeding on viewsThe safety aspects of the garden should be reviewedIndigenous vegetation should be promoted. |\n| (13) Foreshore and cliffs | The foreshore and cliff line with sandstone face should be retainedIndigenous plantings should be promotedSafety and design of the access pathways that lead to the boat harbour and bathing pool below should be reviewed. |\n| (14) Harbourside ruins | The boat harbour, bathing pool, boatsheds and retaining walls should be retained and conservedAn archival record of existing structures should be undertakenFurther physical studies of this area should be undertakenExisting retaining walls should be stabilised |\n| (15) Southern lawn terrace and rockeries | The stone flagged areas, rockeries, and terraces should be retained and conservedThe steel pipe handrail should be upgraded to comply with current access codes. |\n| (16) Western garden including hedged lawn and kitchen garden | The hedged lawn and kitchen garden should be retained and conserved |\n| (17) Paths and stairs | Existing paths and stairs should be retainedA landscape masterplan should study existing paths and stairs and propose a plan considering hierarchy of paths, detailing of edging, consolidation, and cohesive palette of materialsrandom stone paving to lower areas should be removed and replaced with bitumenThe drainage of paths away from the building line should be ensured |\n| (18) Significant trees | All significant trees and plants identified in this HMP and Landscape Management Plan should be retained and protected.A program for succession of identified plantings should be undertaken, particularly to address loss of tree canopy and privacy along Kirribilli Avenue. |\n| (19) Victorian Rustic Gothic style features | The stylistic features of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture should be retained, protected and conserved. |\n| (20) North elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe entry porch in its current configuration should be retained. Steps may be altered but should remain symmetrical to the porchDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (21) East elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in its current configuration should be retained, including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (22) South elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in current configuration should be retained including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to nineteenth century wallsThe timber storeroom may be removed, and the original verandah may be reinstated. |\n| (23) West elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedRoom and gabled roof over the northwest corner of building should be retainedSingle storey parapet wing may be removed or alteredThe service wing may be removed or alteredThe awning entry may be removed or alteredDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (24) Roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods | The roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods should be retained and conservedIf required install, safety anchors on internal slopes. |\n| (25) Masonry walls | Masonry walls and associated elements should be retained and conservedRepairs and conservation work to masonry walls should follow traditional repair methodsDo not use cement render on pre-1950s wallsPaint finish should be retained. |\n| (26) Verandah | The verandah and associated elements should be retained and conservedDo not infill any part of the verandahStoreroom/infill to verandah may be retained or removedFuture replacement of roof should be corrugated copper. |\n| (27) Entry porch including front doors | The entry porch and doors should be retained and conservedThe entry steps may be altered but the symmetry and stone fabric should be retainedThe front doors may be relocated to its original location. The doorframe and fanlight should be retainedStone flagging to interior may be replaced with unglazed tessellated tile. |\n| (28) Bay window including parapet and flat roof | The bay window and its elements should be retained and conserved |\n| (29) French doors | The French doors and associated elements including hardware should be retained and conservedReinstatement of the earlier narrow doors to eastern elevation is not requiredSteel security doors have been designed sympathetically to the doors and should be retainedDo not modify early doors to include double glazing. |\n| (30) Windows | The early casement windows, Gothic windows (porch) and multi-paned double hung windows should be retained and conservedAssociated elements including hardware should be retainedDo not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (31) Shutters | The early shutters (pre-1957) should be retained and conservedShutters of later date may be removed or modified.Do not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (32) Post 1950s additions | Additions may be retained or demolishedIf removed, the original details of the walls should be reinstated. |\n| (33) Service wing | Service wing may be retained or demolished. |\n| (34) Entry hall including Entry lobby | The entry hall and lobby in its current configuration should be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (35) Drawing room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating original wall between roomsSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (36) Dining room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating the opening size between dining and drawing roomSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (37) Prime Minister’s study | Should be retained in its current configurationThe glass doors to the east may be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (38) Green room | Should be retained in its current configurationShelving to either side of fireplace may be altered or removed and former door in this area may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (39) Hallways and stairs | Should be retained in its current configurationThe narrow hall should not be reinstated at ground floorSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (40) Family room | Should be retained in its current configurationSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (41) Bedrooms | Should be retained in its current configurationFireplace may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved. |\n| (42) Bathrooms | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (43) Spaces in service wing | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (44) Internal joinery, including doors, architraves, and skirtings | All pre-1950s joinery should be retained and conserved in situ to reflect the different periods of developmentWhere joinery is polished, polish finish should be retained and not painted overConservation works should consider reinstating the polished/grained finish to early joinery. |\n| (45) Services | See 7.7.12 |\n| (46) Garage | The garage may be altered internally. |\n| (47) Guard house | The meandering paths should be retainedThe guard house may be altered or demolished. |\n| (48) Storeroom | The storeroom may be altered or demolished. |\n| (49) Moveable items | See 7.7.18 |\n\n## 7.9 New work\n\n### 7.9.1 Adaptive re-use\n\nKirribilli House and Garden was constructed as a residence in 1856 and used as a residence during the key period of significance Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920. The site has continued its residential function when it became the Official Sydney Residence of the Prime Minister in 1957, hence the current use is consistent with the historical significance of the site. The residential use is evidenced in the planning of the house and garden as well as its physical fabric.\n\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | The most compatible use for Kirribilli House and Garden is a residential useKirribilli House and Garden should be retained as an Official Sydney Establishment of the Prime Minister and its ownership continued by the CommonwealthBefore considering adaptive re-use an assessment should be made of the compatibility of new use to the site’s historical function, potential loss of associations with prime ministerial roles and potential impacts (physical and visual) on heritage significanceFuture adaptive reuse should also consider hierarchy of public and private use of parts of the site and where feasible allowing public access. |\n| ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.2 New development, additions and infills\n\nThe original house built in 1856 was located on the smoothed platform above the rock outcrop centred on the site. The house was extended to the west in the latter two phases. Minor infills and extension to the house have occurred also taken place during this time. Outbuildings were located as a garden structure on the central garden area, to the west of the site and harbourside structures to the eastern boundary. There is opportunity to restore the ruins of the harbourside structures. Modifications or replacement of the service wing from 1957 is possible. Elsewhere on the site, there is limited opportunity for development without potential impact to heritage significance. Any development of the laundry building which is owned by OOSG has potential to impact the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. There is additional opportunity for development if the site was consolidated with Admiralty House (investigated in Kirribilli House Master Plan Report (Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd, 1981). Opportunities should be considered through a new masterplan study.\n\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | There is minimal opportunity for new development, additions and infills at Kirribilli House and GardenUse of existing spaces should be maximised prior to considering alternatives to developAll other opportunities that have little or no impacts to heritage values should be exhausted prior to considering new developmentRestoration of the harbourside structures should be considered.There is opportunity to modify or replace the service wing from 1957New development should consider the existing architectural style, forms and masses and ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic and do not compete with the Rustic Victorian character of the placeNew work should adopt the principle of reversibility to mitigate potential impactsNew work should use high quality of materials |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is not a static house museum and it should continue to evolve with each incumbent as the requirements for its use change. Changes to the historical uses, however, should be carefully assessed for compatibility of spaces and only implemented once all other options have been investigated and discarded.\n\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | Change of use to spaces are permissibleAreas of low significance have high tolerance and flexibility for changesAreas of high significance have low tolerance and flexibility and compatible uses should be first considered before considering options. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.10 Conservation in accordance with significance\n\nMuch of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House is embodied in the physical fabric of the place. Section 5.4.1 of this HMP sets out the grading scale for significant elements ranging from those elements of exceptional significance down to those that are intrusive. It follows that conservation action should be related to an element’s relative level of significance. Grading of significant fabric in each element/building is included in 5.4.3 and guidelines for managing change are identified in Section 5.4.2.\n\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | Much of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House and Garden is embodied in the physical elements and fabric of the place. Conservation action should be related to the elements or fabric’s level of significanceAny repair, conservation or reconstruction works to significant elements or facades must be undertaken with appropriate direction by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, architect and/or relevant materials specialist/s or conservator and with reference to historical documentation. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n## 7.11 Conservation of Materials\n\n### 7.11.1 Traditional materials\n\nKirribilli House and Garden consists of several traditional materials including slate, lead, copper, sandstone, brick, cast iron and timber.\n\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | A heritage architect should be engaged to undertake works and provide advice on to traditional materialsWhen repairing or altering traditional materials, a qualified and experienced traditional trades contractor should be engaged to undertake the work or supervise the work. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.2 Reconstruction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has many details that are missing or have been undertaken in an inappropriate manner. When these works are proposed to be reconstructed, the work should be based on documentary evidence of an earlier state.\n\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | Reconstruction is appropriate only where an element is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the elementReconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection. |\n| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes\n\nWhen repainting, the choice of paint colours should be based on an understanding of original colours and finishes used – through documentary and analysis of physical evidence (e.g., paint scrapes). \nIf repainting is required, original colour schemes should be re-instated for significant elements. \nA colour palette and interior design advice was provided in the 2016 HMP and should be used to guide future works.\n\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | Refer to Kirribilli House – Colour Palette and Interior Design Heritage Advice, Appendix O. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods\n\nThere are areas of the site that have been inappropriately repaired or conserved. These include the cement mortar repairs to masonry and conservation works where details are exact replicas. \nWhen opportunity arises, undertake works to remedy areas. Works should be prioritised and only those items identified as intrusive should be modified.\n\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | When practical, previous inappropriate repair and conservation methods should be remedied with the use of traditional methods according to priority. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP\n\nThis HMP should be reviewed every five years and considered for full update every ten years or when large-scale changes are proposed that are not considered in this HMP. The implementation of the HMP should also be reviewed every five years.\n\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | This HMP should be reviewed every five years (or when large-scale changes are proposed that have not already been considered in this HMP)This HMP should be reviewed every ten years and considered for a full update.The implementation of the HMP should be reviewed every five years (assessing works priorities, if the HMP is actually implementing the policies and strategies, and the condition of the place and the condition of its listed Commonwealth Heritage values – see table below).These reviews should be documented as reports with findings and actions clearly documented, |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n```html\n

Commonwealth Heritage Values

Reporting and monitoring

Criterion A - Processes – Attributes: The fabric and form of the house

When reviews are undertaken on the effectiveness of the implementation of the HMP policies, these should be applied to the Commonwealth heritage values through a qualitative assessment of the retention of the attributes listed against each relevant criterion (A, B, D, E, G and H). The success in retaining these attributes and thus the associated values that reside in them should be documented as reports with clearly stated findings and actions.

Criterion B - Rarity – Attributes: The house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour

Criterion D - Characteristic values – Attributes: The building's form, its external styling and details, and its early and original fabric

Criterion E - Aesthetic characteristics – Attributes:

The architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour

Criterion G - Social value – Attributes: The house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days

Criterion H - Significant people – Attributes: The whole of the building, both internally and externally

\n```\n\n \n\n### 7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis\n\nA review of reports for the site has identified knowledge gaps. Opportunities should be sought for these to be addressed as part of future investigations and assessments.\n\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | Opportunities should be sought to fill the following knowledge gaps:The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysisAlthough there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be locatedDiscussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruinsDiscussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listedDemonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistasConfirmation of the position and detail of the original staircaseThe detail of the original front doorThe detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevationThe early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of StudyThe detail of the original verandahThe detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracketDetails of the original drawing room windowsThe early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and gratesThe detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbourDetails of original fencing and gates, |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n \n\n| Policy | Responsibility | Priority | Timing |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- |\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | PM&C to adopt and implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C to notify, review and consult | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | PM&C to engage appropriate experts | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | PM&C to induct | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | PM&C to manage | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 9:Saftey | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 10: Access for people with a disability | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | PM&C to plan and coordinate | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 13. Security | PM&C to provide | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 14 Security infrastructure | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 16. Setting | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 18. Significant views | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | PM&C to undertake | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 21-23. Grounds generally / House generally / Maintenance | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 24 Emergency works policy | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 26. General | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 30. Services | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | PM&C to engage appropriate specialists | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 33. Public access | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 35. Movable items | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | PM&C to develop | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 38. | PM&C to conserve and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-10 years |\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-5 years |\n\n## 7.12 Implementation plan\n\nThe following implementation plan should be utilised for the policies listed above.\n\n \n\n# 8.0 Maintenance Schedule\n\n## 8.1 Introduction\n\nRegular, on-going inspection and maintenance is vital to the longevity of heritage buildings and to preserve their heritage significance. The following section provides the required catch up maintenance, a cyclical inspection and maintenance schedule.\n\n## 8.2 Catch-up Maintenance\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been well maintained, resulting in a good overall condition. Conservation of the exterior stonework has been carried out within the last five years. A few catch-up maintenance items were noted. Cleaning of the exterior has been added to the maintenance schedule in Section 8.3.","sortOrder":131},{"sectionNumber":"7.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Objectives","content":"## 7.1 Objectives\n\nThis HMP sets out a structure to assist PM&C for the future management of Kirribilli House and Garden are to ensure the operational duties continue to be carried out, while protecting the identified heritage values and achieving EPBC Act compliance. For historic heritage, it is to conserve the heritage significance through retention of buildings, fabric and landscape elements of significance including the preservation of the historical layout.","sortOrder":132},{"sectionNumber":"7.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Opportunities and constraints","content":"## 7.2 Opportunities and constraints\n\nOpportunities and constraints arising from the identified heritage significance of a place establish \na baseline from where other issues such as maintenance and owner requirements can be considered. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance and requirements under the CHL.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden displays a high degree of significance due to the following:\n\n As the Official Sydney residence of the Australian Prime Minister since 1957\n The site evidences the early land grants to prominent Sydney residents\n Association with early public campaign to protect harbourside development in the 1920s\n Association with Admiralty House and forming part of a continued landscape that is Kirribilli Point\n The site has rare qualities as a surviving Victorian Rustic Gothic residence in a harbour setting and includes the remains of one of the earliest bathing pools on Sydney Harbour\n The site has representative values for its Victorian Rustic Gothic style of house and garden and\n The site is important to the people of Australia and is associated with various prime ministers, dignitaries, and significant people in the community.\n\nOpportunities arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Maintain a high quality of care and management of the site\n Interpreting the heritage values of the site including the different phases of development\n Presenting a cohesive landscape of Kirribilli Point that includes both Kirribilli and Admiralty House\n Potential for development or rebuilding of areas that are poorly presented and placing unnecessary pressures on security and privacy of the site and\n Review and re-design of the garden to emphasise heritage significance and introduce other elements of significance of the site.\n\nConstraints arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Operational, security and privacy requirements from the use of the site as a place of residence of the Prime Minister and visits by dignitaries\n Physical constraints of the site for development and\n Maintenance requirements and upkeep of the site resulting from age, building materials, siting, and damp issues of the site.","sortOrder":133},{"sectionNumber":"7.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Planned Works","content":"## 7.3 Planned Works\n\nThe following works are currently planned for this site:\n\n Repairs to the garden paving\n Seawall stabilisation\n\nAll works will be undertaken in accordance with Policy 7 of this HMP.","sortOrder":134},{"sectionNumber":"7.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Policies and guidelines","content":"## 7.4 Policies and guidelines\n\nThe role of the conservation policies in this HMP is to provide specific guidelines for the conservation, on-going care, development and use of Kirribilli House and Garden so that its cultural significance is appropriately maintained, enhanced, and interpreted. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance.","sortOrder":135},{"sectionNumber":"7.5","sectionType":"part","heading":"Management Policies","content":"# 7.0 Managing heritage values\n\n## 7.1 Objectives\n\nThis HMP sets out a structure to assist PM&C for the future management of Kirribilli House and Garden are to ensure the operational duties continue to be carried out, while protecting the identified heritage values and achieving EPBC Act compliance. For historic heritage, it is to conserve the heritage significance through retention of buildings, fabric and landscape elements of significance including the preservation of the historical layout.\n\n## 7.2 Opportunities and constraints\n\nOpportunities and constraints arising from the identified heritage significance of a place establish \na baseline from where other issues such as maintenance and owner requirements can be considered. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance and requirements under the CHL.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden displays a high degree of significance due to the following:\n\n As the Official Sydney residence of the Australian Prime Minister since 1957\n The site evidences the early land grants to prominent Sydney residents\n Association with early public campaign to protect harbourside development in the 1920s\n Association with Admiralty House and forming part of a continued landscape that is Kirribilli Point\n The site has rare qualities as a surviving Victorian Rustic Gothic residence in a harbour setting and includes the remains of one of the earliest bathing pools on Sydney Harbour\n The site has representative values for its Victorian Rustic Gothic style of house and garden and\n The site is important to the people of Australia and is associated with various prime ministers, dignitaries, and significant people in the community.\n\nOpportunities arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Maintain a high quality of care and management of the site\n Interpreting the heritage values of the site including the different phases of development\n Presenting a cohesive landscape of Kirribilli Point that includes both Kirribilli and Admiralty House\n Potential for development or rebuilding of areas that are poorly presented and placing unnecessary pressures on security and privacy of the site and\n Review and re-design of the garden to emphasise heritage significance and introduce other elements of significance of the site.\n\nConstraints arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Operational, security and privacy requirements from the use of the site as a place of residence of the Prime Minister and visits by dignitaries\n Physical constraints of the site for development and\n Maintenance requirements and upkeep of the site resulting from age, building materials, siting, and damp issues of the site.\n\n## 7.3 Planned Works\n\nThe following works are currently planned for this site:\n\n Repairs to the garden paving\n Seawall stabilisation\n\nAll works will be undertaken in accordance with Policy 7 of this HMP.\n\n## 7.4 Policies and guidelines\n\nThe role of the conservation policies in this HMP is to provide specific guidelines for the conservation, on-going care, development and use of Kirribilli House and Garden so that its cultural significance is appropriately maintained, enhanced, and interpreted. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance.\n\n## 7.5 Management Policies\n\n### 7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP\n\nWhilst Kirribilli House and Garden remains a Commonwealth property, this HMP must be reviewed at least once every five years in accordance with Section 341X (1) of the EPBC Act. The review should assess the content of the plan and determine its effectiveness in protecting the heritage values of the place and make recommendations for updating or re-writing the plan as required. The review is to be undertaken with assistance from a heritage specialist and be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and Regulations for the review of management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places. The review is to focus on amending responsibilities, include commentary on any works undertaken since the last HMP review, and consider any changes or planned changes of use.\n\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | The conservation policies set out in this plan should be adopted by PM&C and implementedRelevant policies should be cross referenced to other management documentsA copy of the HMP should be retained on siteThis HMP must be updated every five years by PM&C with the assistance of a heritage specialist to ensure it remains relevant to the use of Kirribilli House and Garden and to ensure statutory compliance is maintainedThis HMP should also be updated after any significant changes to the site have occurred. At a minimum, the review must:Assess whether the plan is consistent with the Commonwealth Heritage management principles in force at the timeAssess whether the plan is effective in protecting and conserving the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenMake recommendations for the improved protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenThe listed Commonwealth Heritage values will be monitored, reviewed and reported on annually as part of the PM&C Annual Reporting Cycle. This information will be provided to DCCEEW every three years, as outlined in the PM&C Heritage Strategy. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth asset on Commonwealth land within NSW, managed by PM&C. If the asset leaves Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), ongoing heritage protection would be required under S341ZE of the EPBC Act. An update and revision of this HMP would then be required to accurately consider and reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements.\n\nResponsibility for undertaking the review of the HMP should fall to the new owner and should be undertaken within six months of the sale, and/or prior to the undertaking of any changes to Kirribilli House and Garden. To ensure that this requirement is recognised by the new owner it should form part of the sale/transfer documents between PM&C and the new owner.\n\nUnder S341ZE of the EPBC Act, PM&C must notify the Minister of the proposed divestment and establish an appropriate mechanism to protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place during the sale/transfer process and after the property has left Commonwealth control (such as a covenant \nin the sale/transfer documents, or equivalent arrangements).\n\nA copy of the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment as NSW heritage legislation would apply in the absence of Commonwealth ownership. The heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden should therefore be nominated by PM&C for formal protection under the NSW heritage system in the event of divestment.\n\nConsultation with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment will be necessary at least 12 months prior to the property leaving Commonwealth ownership, to ensure the appropriate nominations are in place to provide ongoing heritage protection. PM&C should also consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and submit the consultation outcomes to Heritage NSW.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been assessed as having outstanding heritage values and thus potentially reaching the threshold for inclusion on the NHL. Along with inclusion on the NSW SHR, a NHL listing would provide an additional layer of protection of the heritage values of the site. It is recommended that the site should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL.\n\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C must notify the Minister responsible for heritage of the intention to divest or lease the site, in accordance with the timeframes specified under S341ZE of the EPBC ActThis HMP should be reviewed to reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements. The HMP should be updated within six months of a Change of Ownership or Lease agreementIf the site is to leave Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and EnvironmentConsultation should occur with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the consultation outcomes submitted to Heritage NSWKirribilli House and Garden should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL and NSW SHR. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades\n\nThis HMP was prepared using a range of expert advice. For successful long-term interpretation and implementation of this Plan, continuity of competent advice is important to avoid implications from \nill-advised decisions.\n\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | Persons with suitable expertise and experience in conservation projects should be engaged for the resolution of conservation issues, as well as for input into the design and administration of conservation work on the place. Expert persons may include heritage architects, heritage landscape architects, heritage consultants, traditional (stone/slate/plaster) material contractors and arborists. |\n| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.4 Training and resources\n\nOccupants, staff, managers and contractors should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. Contractors should be given a copy of the Heritage Induction Training Manual provided in Appendix P.\n\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | All personnel on site should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and GardenA copy of the Heritage Induction Training Materials should be provided to contractors undertaking works on site. |\n| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities\n\nOwnership and property management of Kirribilli House and Garden including heritage management and Capital Works is managed by PM&C HOST. Other stakeholder management roles and responsibilities are set out in Section 1.6.\n\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders should be familiar with the roles and responsibilities of each agency. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping\n\nWorks undertaken to modify elements of Kirribilli House and Garden need to be approved by PM&C. Works may include:\n\n- determining if EPBC Act referral is necessary\n- determining if a HIA is required for proposed works\n- design works referencing the HMP\n- engaging a specialist to provide advice and undertake the submission of the draft HIA\n- undertaking EPBC Act self-assessment\n- undertaking consultation with DCCEEW\n- undertaking the attainment of approvals\n- commencement of works\n- documentation of the works.\n\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | All works that are the responsibility of PM&C shall be in accordance with the PM&C approval process included in HOW TO: Procurement Address Heritage Considerations (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023)Implementation of policies and works should be recorded by PM&C and records shall be maintained in the ShareHub systemDetails of day to day property maintenance will be kept by JLL with regular reports provided to PM&C filing on its ShareHub system. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.7 Legislative approvals process\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth property and hence must be managed in accordance with Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations (see Table 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist) and the policies in this HMP. If proposed works are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, approval must be sought through the EPBC Act referral process. The first step in assessing the impact of any proposed works is to prepare a self-assessment, in the format of a Heritage Impact Assessment. This should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist. If the self-assessment finds the action will or might have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage listed values, the action will need to be referred to the Minister for Environment and Water in accordance with Sections 26 and 29 of the EPBC Act. Advice can be sought from DCCEEW on this process and any potential actions. Any proposed works should consider alternatives to minimise impacts to heritage values.\n\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | Kirribilli House and Garden must be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles set out in Schedule 7B of the EPBC RegulationsConsultation should be undertaken early on EPBC Act referrals with DCCEEW heritageApproval should be sought through the EPBC referral processConsideration should be given to alternatives to minimise heritage impacts. |\n| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance\n\nIf compliance with the NCC and DDA to meet health, safety and energy efficiency requirements are likely to have a substantial impact on significant fabric or heritage values. Alternative engineered solutions that minimise impacts should be considered and promoted.\n\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | Compliance with the NCC or DDA should focus on responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect the significance. An alternative engineered solution may need to be sought if deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot be met. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to code compliance should be avoided. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.9 Safety\n\nKirribilli House is required to meet current safety standards as both a workplace and as a building. Measures should be taken to balance the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place with these safety obligations. All buildings and workplaces are required to meet various safety codes, including Kirribilli House. As a workplace, PM&C, with staff at the property, are required to ensure a safe work environment at all times and they must ensure that all incumbents and their families, as well as staff and visitors to the property are aware of any safety risks.\n\n| Policy 9. Safety | PM&C should aim to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code Australia (BCA) when they apply. Any strategies or solutions to make Kirribilli House comply with the BCA requirements should balance the cultural significance of the place with the objectives of the BCA. If conflict occurs, external heritage and architectural advice may be requiredWorks that improve the health and safety of the property are necessary, however they should be planned and designed ina sympathetic manner, so they do not negatively impact the Commonwealth Heritage values of the placeShould there be a conflict between the provision of safety measures and the protection of heritage fabric, safety should be the overriding factor which determines the measures necessaryAlternative solutions and compromises should be pursued wherever possible so that a solution is designed which meets both safety and heritage considerationsIt should be noted however, that whilst the BCA does not affect these items retrospectively, WH&S compliance is a current legislative obligationAn asbestos management plan should be implemented for any remaining asbestos. |\n| ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability\n\nAccess for people with a disability is currently inadequate. Although the DDA is not prescriptive, \nit would be best practice for Kirribilli House to have a policy for providing dignified and easy access. The DDA makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their disability. It is not specifically about buildings, however it has an effect on buildings in which the design and construction prevents access by people with a disability; as the owners of those buildings can be deemed to be discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.\n\n| Policy 10. Access for people with a disability | The following procedure should be applied when considering changes to heritage buildingsReview the significance of the place and identify the elements of greatest significanceUndertake an Access Audit to determine existing and required levels of accessibility; noting that some areas are exempt under the NCCEvaluate access options within a Commonwealth Heritage context. This process includes consultation with authorities and approval of the proposed actionPrepare the access policy or action planImplement the necessary action. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.11 Planning and coordination\n\nProposing ad-hoc changes can have an adverse impact on the significant values of the place. \nOver time, when these ad-hoc measures are undertaken independently, without coordination, \nplanning or expert advice, they can result in compounding adverse impact on the values of the place.\n\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | A coordinated and planned approach is necessary when proposing changes to Kirribilli House and GardenThe proposed activity should be reviewed within a holistic management framework to avoid adverse impacts resulting fromad-hoc measures. |\n| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation\n\nEarly consultation with stakeholders is required to comply with the EPBC Regulations when managing heritage places. The EPBC Act requires public notification of a HMP. This consultation process may be undertaken once a final HMP is available. In accordance with the referral assessment process under the EPBC Act, any proposed action that will impact on the heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden must also be notified for public comment.\n\nWhilst works proposed to Kirribilli House do not need to comply with local planning requirements, \nif significant works are proposed, it is recommended that North Sydney Council be informed.\n\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | Relevant stakeholder consultation should be undertaken early as part of managing the heritage place, allowing sufficient time for input in accordance with the EPBC ActThe HMP must be available for public notificationAny proposed action that impacts the heritage values of Kirribilli House must be notified for public commentIf substantial works are proposed, North Sydney Council should be informed as a good neighbour policy. |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\nPlease note that as per Section 1.8.1, public notification and exhibition of the draft HMP were carried out in 2023, prior to the finalisation of this document.\n\n \n\n## 7.6 Security\n\n### 7.6.1 Security and privacy\n\nManagement of Kirribilli House and Garden requires a high level of security and privacy.\n\n| Policy 13. Security and privacy | Elements of this HMP will be made available to government departments and external stakeholders on a need-to-know basisSections of the Heritage Induction Training Manual shall be made available to relevant contractors working on the site (see Appendix P) |\n| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.6.2 Security Infrastructure\n\nHome Affairs are responsible for the security infrastructure at Kirribilli House. The Australian Federal Police provide 24-hour physical security for the site. Extenuating circumstances may result in the disturbance of heritage fabric. The security of the property and the people within it will always outweigh any other requirements.\n\n| Policy 14. Security Infrastructure | Security requirements at Kirribilli House are fundamentally important for the safety and functionality of the house and those who work/live thereInterior security measures, such as distress buttons, are a high security priority. For security reasons they need to be placed in prominent, easily reached locations within the rooms, however whenever possible they should not be inserted into significant fabricWhile security is an essential operational requirement, any changes should be implemented in a way that minimises heritage impact where possible. |\n| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n## 7.7 Site-wide policies\n\n### 7.7.1 Conservation principles\n\nThe Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, known as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013), \nis 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. \nThere are seven principles that guide the care of heritage places:\n\n1\\. The place itself is important\n\n2\\. Understand the significance of the place\n\n3\\. Understand the fabric\n\n4\\. Significance should guide decisions\n\n5\\. Do as much as necessary, as little as possible\n\n6\\. Keep records\n\n7\\. Do everything in a logical order.\n\nThe use of the terms, conservation, preservation, reconstruction, adaptation, fabric, maintenance, repair, and compatible use in this report are defined in The Burra Charter.\n\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | Future work on the complex should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and its GuidelinesThe Commonwealth heritage values of the place should be the basis for all future planning and development. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.2 Setting\n\nThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting is a key contributory element to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden and its landmark qualities. The site is part of a continued landscape that includes Admiralty House on Kirribilli Point. Having met CHL Criterion B, D and E that relates to the setting of the place, it is crucial that the policy below be adopted to protect and maintain the CHL values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 16. Setting | The landmark qualities of Kirribilli House and Garden should be retained and protectedThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting should be retained, protected and promoted. This includes such key elements as the Victorian picturesque qualities (sweeping lawn, meandering paths, dramatic views and wild character), topography, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, harbour views and access to waterwayRetain and protect the continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. |\n| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.3 Streetscape\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to Kirribilli Conservation Area, which has been characterised by a mix of small, medium and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and contemporary residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | Kirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to the Kirribilli Conservation Area, hence contributory elements, including Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture, principal elevations, established garden, integration to topography and homogeneous scale, should all be retained and protected. |\n| ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.4 Significant views\n\nKirribilli House within Kirribilli Point forms part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape which is appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from Sydney Opera House, Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point and distant views from Bradley’s Head.\n\nThere is a harmonious relationship between the house, garden and the wider landscape which is the harbour setting. The site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden which include panoramas, framed and filtered views. This contributes to the picturesque setting and is part of the early planning of the site that evidence the key period of significance. Significant views identified have been included in Section 3.2.1 and 3.6 and are defined in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.\n\nFigure 7‑2.\n\n| Policy 18. Significant views | Significant views to and from Kirribilli House and Garden should be maintained and protectedThese include but are not limited to those identified in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.Figure 7‑2. |\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of the harbour near Kirribilli House outlining the significant views](image.178.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑1: Significant views to Kirribilli House from various vantage points of Sydney Harbour (maps.six.nsw.gov.au\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of Kirribilli House grounds highlighting the significant views seen from the property](image.179.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑2: Significant views from Kirribilli House and Garden (maps.six.nsw.gov.au)\n\n### 7.7.5 Heritage curtilage\n\nKirribilli House retains its original physical curtilage which is defined by the existing site boundary. \nThe site has maintained the early subdivision from Admiralty House estate and sold in 1854 to \nAdolph Feez who built the house in 1856. The earliest access to the site is likely to have been from the harbour and the earliest plans included boat access on the eastern boundary. The earliest plans also show access from Kirribilli Avenue.\n\nA visual curtilage can be extended to include vistas from the harbour and beyond from various vantage points.\n\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | The physical curtilage defined by the existing site boundary including access to the foreshore and Kirribilli Avenue should be retained and protectedA visual curtilage that includes vantage points of Kirribilli House and Garden from the harbourside should be retained protected. |\n| ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.6 Masterplans\n\nKirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House are major elements of Kirribilli Point that form part of the continuous Sydney Harbour landscape. There are both built and natural elements from both sites that are historically significant which should be preserved and promoted. Developing a masterplan will assist in identifying areas for future development, planning and maintenance of the site and minimise any detrimental effects from ad-hoc activities.\n\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | When opportunity presents, undertake one masterplan for Kirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House to guide future works. Include a study of the historical development of the site architectural style, massing, geometry/axis, vistas, and circulation (vehicular/pedestrian) studies. The plan should include a review of existing infrastructure/services and develop a site wide methodology for implementing new work. The plan should identify areas of future development including scale, height, massing and materials for potential future development. The masterplan should include a landscape masterplan that incorporates both sites as one landscape element of Kirribilli PointWhen opportunity presents, provide a detailed and updated version of the current Landscape Management Plan for Kirribilli House(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) to include the heritage significance of areas of the garden, identify specific historic elements relating to significance, consolidate information fromGeoff Britton’s landscape assessment (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H) and the AECOM Tree Survey, 2023Using the above information, compile a detailed landscape design for the garden with clear heritage and design principles for each garden areaThe landscape masterplan/updated Landscape Management Plan should study water drainage and succession planting to re-establish the lost tree canopies. It should also identify plant species on site that have high water consumption and propose alternative sub-species (whilst retaining the heritage values) that are more resilient. It should also consider reducing the ongoing erosion of the sandstone cliffA qualified heritage architect, heritage landscape architect and relevant service consultants should be engaged to undertake this workThis HMP should be updated in the next review to include findings from the masterplan and the updated Landscape Management Plan. |\n| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.7 Grounds generally\n\nThe garden at Kirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Vestiges of the pre-European landscape, Phase 1 –19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the grounds generally.\n\n| Policy 21. Grounds generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:- Vestiges of the pre-European landscape evidenced in the indigenous vegetation, rock outcrops, and sandstone cliffs, reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline- Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of thePeople-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque qualities, sweeping lawn, meandering stone paths, terracing, dry stone walling, fencing, dramatic views(panoramic, framed and filtered) and floristic (leaf form, colour, and texture).- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the plantings associated with significant people- Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the instruction of terracing, steps, trees, and plants (exotic and native)Retain a high quality of garden maintenance by engaging trade professionals with proven experience in horticulture, garden maintenance and heritage gardensEngage arborists as required to manage the health and safety of older treesPrior to removal and pruning of trees consider impacts to significant views (panoramas, framed and filtered)Do not introduce new structures in the garden except for temporary structures such as marquees and climbing framesDo not introduce new garden beds or new species of plants to the site unless implemented by a landscape masterplan or management planKeep a record of plants that have been part of memorials, functions, planted or gifted by dignitariesBuilt memorials should be avoided in the garden to retain the Victorian style and residential significance of the place. Australian artwork/sculptures may be incorporated if they are sympathetic to the significance of the placeOutdoor furniture, fixtures and fittings should be sympathetic of the heritage values of the place. Retain cast iron urns and sundialsRetain and repair as necessary the boundary fences to the sitePrior to implementing the Landscape Management Plan(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) for detailed works to hard and soft landscaping, resolve the inconsistencies of heritage landscape principles from Geoff Britton’s assessments updated information from AECOM’s Tree Survey 2023 through a landscape masterplan/detailed management plan or landscape design. |\n| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.8 House generally\n\nKirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 \n(Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the house generally.\n\n| Policy 22. House generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque setting, modest scale, irregular massing, steeply pitched gabled roofs with highly decorated bargeboards, prominent gable, gabled dormer, slate roof, textured masonry walling, bay windows, timber verandah and tall medieval looking chimneys, fireplaces, timber joinery- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the single storey addition (wet), bay window replacements to double hung window, gabled roof, and room to first floor, hallway widened, addition of bathrooms, garagePhase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the service wing, single storey additions to either side of porch, replacement of shutters, verandah infill for storeroom, timber valence reconstruction, security screens, eastern gable windows, main stair reconstruction, and conservation worksConserve and promote the relationship of the house to the garden such as verandahs and garden elementsRetain and protect the internal arrangement of spaces, inter-relationships of rooms and volumes of spacesRetain and conserve the hierarchy of public and private spacesThe house may be altered to suit the function as an Official Prime Minister’s Residence whilst respecting the heritage values of the placeNew work should not replicate previous styles but be of a contemporary style and sympathetic to the heritage values of the placeReconstruction works should be identifiable through subtle variation in detail and should be dated. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.9 Maintenance and repair\n\nSystematic maintenance will conserve significant fabric longer for the ultimate benefit of future generations. A site wide maintenance plan is provided in Section 8.0.\n\n| Policy 23. Maintenance | Implement the General Maintenance Plan included in this HMP in accordance with the policies contained in this HMPThe maintenance plan should be adopted by JLL under their contractual obligationsThe maintenance plan should be integrated into the PM&C asset maintenance processes. A Heritage Asset works/maintenance record should also be prepared and maintained for each activityPrior to undertaking any maintenance works, confirmed that the activity proposed is maintenance and complies with the policies an in this HMP. This should be confirmed by PM&CA dedicated budget should be implemented to guide on-going maintenance work on the significant elements identified in this HMPAdequate funding arrangements for maintenance and urgent repairs identified in this HMP should be put in placeIncrease rate of maintenance following inclement weather such as high winds and storms. Inspect all weatherproofing elements of the buildingsEnsure all contractors are made aware of the heritage values of the place by providing the Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P) to all contractors on site.Undertake a structural condition assessment of the site every five years by a qualified structural engineer. |\n| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.10 Emergency Works\n\nEmergency works should always be undertaken as a priority, wherever possible they should seek to be completely reversible. Emergency works (such as rectifying storm damage, repairing water leaks or attending electrical malfunctions) are a necessary aspect of managing the maintenance, safety and condition of Kirribilli House. By their very nature, they often have to be undertaken quickly with little planning. If works occur (due to safety or security reasons) that are not sympathetic, such work should be ‘undone’ as soon as practicable.\n\n| Policy 24. Emergency Works | Emergency works must always be undertaken as quickly as possible.Any emergency works should be recorded by PM&C, with the issue, condition prior to repairs and condition after repairs (including photographs) recorded as a minimum.PM&C, as the agency responsible for contractors carrying out emergency works to the fixed building elements, should be notified as soon as possible to inspect the temporary repairs and decide on a more permanent solution.All emergency works should be reversible whenever possible. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience\n\nSustainable and resilient methods are required to manage the adverse effects of climate change. The skilled craftsmanship and composition of old materials result in heritage buildings that are durable. The re-use of existing buildings and fabric reduces the embodied energy required for new development. Hence, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings should be considered as a first measure before new development is considered. An energy audit/thermal assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden will identify areas energy expenditure.\n\nThe Australian Public Service (APS) must comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy. APS Net Zero will be achieved by actively reducing emissions from APS operations as well as through offsets. This initiative will also encourage transparency by requiring Commonwealth entities to publicly report on their emissions, whilst supporting the uplift of climate capability across the APS.\n\nExtreme weather patterns in the future mean that there will be periods of extreme drought and wet weather as well as erratic events and increased climate induced disasters. Environmental factors specific to Kirribilli House and Garden in the future include:\n\n- Increase in ambient humidity levels and condensation within buildings leading to mould and damp\n- Dry weather patterns creating shrinking of fabric and cracks to structure\n- Intense rainfalls and storms causing inefficient water drainage from buildings and areas of the garden, damage to property\n- Long periods of rain\n- The existing rising damp conditions to worsen.\n\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience(a) Assessments/audits | Comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy.Should the opportunity arise, undertake the following assessments/audits:- Undertake an initial and periodic energy, water and thermal comfort assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden to identify areas of deficiencies, ideally over a year (to account for season)- Assess the existing ventilation in buildings and implement methods of improvement to minimise humidity in buildings e.g., sub floor ventilation- Assess rain and surface water runoff across the whole site and in buildings. This may include installing sensors to measure ground moisture. Implement improvements especially during torrential rainfall events- Assess the viability of measures to reduce water and energy consumption in the garden (additional rainwater tanks, automatic watering, solar powered garden lights, drought tolerant plants and grasses). |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (b) Implementation | Implement low impact measures sympathetic to heritage values such as upgrades to fittings and fixtures (e.g., light fittings, water closets, taps) and services (air conditioning units, gas fireplaces)Increase the rate of maintenance to existing buildings during periods of extreme weather eventsPromote adaptive reuse of buildings. Demonstrate and exhaust all other measures to ensure existing buildings are used efficiently prior to constructing new buildings and structuresSolar panels should be avoided on the main house structure to avoid impact on significant views of the house. Solar panels may be installed on the laundry building if an HIA has determined that physical and visual impacts are minimal. The works will require permission from OOSGGNew work/developments should incorporate sustainable design and construction methodsUndertake any catch-up maintenance activities. Ensure that cyclical maintenance and emergency maintenance are activated immediately. |\n| (c) Management plans | Develop a Sustainability Action Plan for the site and include all sustainability measures. Include a risk register and identify risks to heritage elements including loss of heritage significant plant species, loss of lawns, property damage from high winds, erosion impact to garden, risk to heritage fabric from damage, increase in pests and diseases in garden. Include measures to educate staff, contractors on creating an awareness of sustainability issues.Develop and implement a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the site that identifies potential risks to the site and its heritage values to prepare Kirribilli House and Garden for future events. This plan should identify elements of the site that maybe sacrificial losses. |\n\n### 7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management\n\nIt is recognised that Kirribilli House and Garden is located within a larger cultural landscape of high social, cultural, and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples and will apply a precautionary approach to the management of heritage values.\n\n| Policy 26. General | The overarching aim for the management of the Indigenous heritage values should be done in partnership with Indigenous stakeholders.Consider the preparation of an interpretation strategy covering intangible Indigenous heritage values in the context of the broader intangible cultural landscape. This should be undertaken with Indigenous consultation.Indigenous stakeholders should be consulted regarding any potential impacts if any Indigenous heritage values are identified in relation to Kirribilli House and Garden. Consultation, in all instances, should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Ask First Guidelines.Should a plan be formulated for the management of the garden, there may be an opportunity for consideration to be given to Indigenous plantings to be added to the existing landscape, to allow for interpretation of the history of the location. Such a garden plan should be guided by the findings of the interpretation strategy and the consultation outcomes of the intangible cultural landscape values. |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nPrior to commencement of any new development activities/works within Kirribilli House and Garden, all relevant site personnel and contractors should be made aware of Indigenous heritage values. The discovery of unexpected Indigenous heritage should trigger ”Stop Works” as detailed in Policy 27.\n\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | Unexpected Indigenous Heritage Finds Procedure (excluding human skeletal remains)1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the artefact/site must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing).2. Notification - The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management about the discovery and seek advice.3. Impact Assessment - If required, undertake an assessment for the proposed activity/works in accordance with relevant heritage guidelines.4. Impact Mitigation - Implement management actions detailed in the assessment.5. Reporting - Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the new site and any implemented management actions.Unexpected Human Skeletal Remains Procedure - For any confirmed or suspected human skeletal remains, the following procedure should be followed:1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the remains must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing). The remains must not be left unattended.2. Notification: The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management of the discovery. They, in turn, must notify the Coroner’s Office and the Military Police, who will notify appropriate local authorities. If it is confirmed by these authorities that the remains are Indigenous Ancestral Remains, they should, as soon as practicable, report the existence of the remains to Indigenous stakeholders and relevant State-based heritage authorities.3. Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Management should consult with Indigenous stakeholders and an appropriately experienced and qualified heritage consultant. In general, the first management option should be avoidance of the location. If this is not possible, then relocation of the remains to a designated keeping place, or reburial at a location near to the original (but within an area that will not be impacted) should be undertaken. The wishes of the Indigenous stakeholders should guide these actions. The excavation and handling of any Indigenous skeletal remains should follow best practice scientific guidelines (e.g., NSW Heritage Office, 1998).4. GEMS Update:- Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the remains and implemented management actions. |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nConsider the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process, acknowledging security and safety constraints.\n\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | Kirribilli House and Garden is an active, high security area with access needing to be arranged in advance through appropriate personnel, with all visitors subject to security clearance and induction processes. Existing security and induction procedures notwithstanding, should Indigenous values be identified in the future, the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process should then be developed, which could potentially provide approval for on-site cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies. In general, should any interested Indigenous community members wish to enter for cultural reasons, they should contact the appropriate management contact who should facilitate the visit. |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nIndigenous stakeholders should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any public disclosures pertaining to the Indigenous heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | The investigation of intangible Indigenous cultural heritage values, and in the event that finds occur during future works, may result in the identification of Indigenous values relating to Kirribilli House and Garden. Should information regarding such Indigenous heritage values be proposed for release into the public domain, Indigenous stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on any disclosures prior to their release. All comments received should be considered and inform the final disseminated disclosure. |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.13 Services\n\nThe insertion of any new services should be carefully considered and consider the original structure and fabric of the heritage buildings to minimise impact.\n\n| Policy 30. Services | Services should be minimised in their extent and carefully planned to minimise damage to significant fabricNew, replacement and upgraded services should use existing conduits and ducts wherever possibleCeiling-mounted fittings, such as detectors and light fittings with minimal fixings are recommendedSurface-mounted vertical risers are permitted, provided their style and finish is compatible with the cultural significance of the space through which they pass. Wherever possible, vertical risers should be in minor spaces of least cultural significanceLight fittings and electrical accessories (switch plates, GPOs) should not be period reproductions but discrete modern fixturesAir-conditioning units should be discreet in location and appearance. Any associated works should be positioned to avoid damage to significant fabricExternal air-conditioning units should be concealed from view, not located on the front façade of the building, and positioned to avoid damage to significant external fabric. |\n| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring\n\nAreas of high archaeological potential have been identified at the subject site. If excavation is proposed in these areas, further investigation by a suitably qualified archaeologist would be required prior to commencement of works.\n\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | Any excavation in areas of high archaeological potential should be carried out under archaeological supervision by a qualified archaeologistIf underfloor deposits are planned to be removed, engage an archaeologist to remove and assess to determine the presence of any artefactsIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, implement an unexpected finds procedure must be followed (see Figure 4‑27). |\n| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.15 Carparking and circulation\n\nThe site has limited potential for incorporating carparking and vehicular access without impacting on the garden setting of the site. The driveway loop originates from the Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 \n(Official Residence of the Prime Minister) and is graded as an item of moderate significance, \nhence may be modified for future requirements.\n\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | An increase to the number of carparking spaces currently provided is not recommended i.e., spaces for permanent garaged vehicles and informal parking of cars on drivewayThe driveway loop may be modified for future carparking and vehicular access but must have little to no impact on the garden setting. |\n| ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.16 Public access\n\nThere is limited public access due to security and privacy reasons. However, the site holds many functions where large number of people can attend the site at any one time. Open days of the house and garden are also held. It is important that the heritage significance of the site is communicated, and significant fabric is protected during these times by implementing a Visitor Management Strategy.\n\n| Policy 33. Public access | Undertake and implement a Visitor Management Strategy for the site.Public open days should occur every year however the level at which the property is open to the public should be decided in conjunction with the incumbentsAt a minimum the grounds should be open for inspection during open daysCare should be taken to protect artworks and furniture during open daysInterpretative materials should be available on the day |\n| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.17 Archival recording\n\nAn archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved for removal should be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage specialist in accordance with the Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, \nrevised 2006) guideline. The record should aim to capture the item prior to, during and after the proposed works. A copy of the archival record be provided to the local council and the NLA.\n\nCurrently there are several sites that hold vast amount of historical information relating to the site including, State Records, NLA, State Library of NSW, Stanton Library and PM&C. This information should be consolidated, and a central repository of information should be established.\n\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | Undertake an archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved to be demolished. The works should comply with Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, revised 2006) guidelineProvide a copy of the archival record to PM&C, council and NLA(with redacted information on security)Establish a central repository of information of historical data. |\n| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.18 Movable items\n\nThere are several movable items associated with Kirribilli House and Garden. These include a wide variety of furniture, art and memorabilia predominantly lent and managed by the Australian Fund (see detailed identification, care and management set out in the catalogue by Australian Fund, The Australian Fund, 2022). Additional items found on site should be assessed and recorded by suitably qualified persons and conserved on site or protected in off-site storage.\n\n| Policy 35. Movable items | The existing management practice and collaboration with Australian Fund and PM&C should continueIf additional moveable items are found, they should be identified and assessed by a suitably qualified person and conserved on site, or protected in an off-site storage facilityMovable items should be assessed for suitability for incorporation in an Interpretation Plan for the site. |\n| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.19 Heritage interpretation\n\nThere is an opportunity for the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden to be promoted to the public by undertaking an Interpretation Strategy. The strategy should be prepared by a heritage consultant and appropriately funded. This strategy should include consideration of security and safety requirements whilst communicating the heritage significance of the site.\n\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | An Interpretation Strategy should be prepared for Kirribilli House and Garden by a suitably qualified heritage consultantThe Interpretation Strategy should consider privacy, safety, and security requirements of the siteConsider the use of wide range of media, digital, paper, physical (signage, fabric) and sensory elements (e.g., textured materials in the garden and soundscapes)Include associations with significant people for the house as well as the garden (include signage adjacent to significant plants).Consider displaying historic photographsIncorporate any oral histories (e.g., descendants of the Feez family, former Prime Ministers)Include Indigenous heritage values and consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal parties.If there is an opportunity, undertake an Indigenous Intangible Cultural Values study and to incorporate reference to Indigenous past in the garden through a cohesive approach.An Indigenous Interpretation Strategy may be prepared as a separate documentCreate a unified and consistent style, sympathetic to the heritage aesthetic of the site, for interpretation of the site e.g., style of fonts and colours for signs. |\n| ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.20 Signage and external lighting\n\nThere is limited signage on site that is in keeping with the residential character of the site. There is also a mixture of light fittings in the house and garden with majority of fittings originating from the 1957 modifications and some reproduced Victorian lamps.\n\nSignage and external lighting can add to the character of the site. Signage and lighting should not adversely affect the significant heritage fabric and overall character of the site. When installing signage, the fixings should be reversible and not damage significant fabric.\n\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | Should the opportunity, arise develop a complex-wide signage and external lighting plan for the site.Signage and lighting should be in harmony with the historic character of the site and compliant with current Australian health and safety standardsFree standing signage systems should be used for major directional signs, with smaller signs applied to selected areas with a minimum of fixingsSigns should not be attached to the brickwork walls of the buildingsIf the opportunity arises, a lighting designer or architect should be engaged to undertake a site wide study of existing lighting to the house and garden, and propose a lighting plan that is a contemporary design and sympathetic to the heritage values of the siteIncorporate sustainable lighting practices. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.8 Contributory elements\n\nContributory elements (tangible and intangible) to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden have been identified in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements. \nThese elements are essential to the significance of the place and should be conserved according to the following policies.\n\n| Policy 38 | |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (1) Curtilage | See policy 7.7.5. |\n| (2) Relationship to Admiralty House | Conserve and protect views to Admiralty House and key elements within its gardenRetain the existing access points at the western boundary. |\n| (3) Views and vistas to Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (4) Views and vistas from Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (5) Pre-European vestiges | Retain and protect features of the pre-European landscape including, plantings, rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs. |\n| (6) Entrance gates, stone walls, and fences | Retain and conserve stone walls and wrought iron gates.Consider replacing the side entry gate to an interpreted detail of the early gate from 1913 (Figure 5-11Figure 5‑6)Fencing to the northern boundary may be altered to interpret earlier detailsThe fencing along the boundary to Admiralty House may be altered to a more open style of fence to interpret the connection between the two sites. |\n\n \n\n| (7) Driveway, driveway loop and entrance forecourt | An entry precinct that is grand and in keeping with the Victorian themed garden style should be retainedPlant species should be sourced from available archival sources of the Victorian eraThe entry drive should not be increased in area for future useAn updated Landscape Management Plan should review the significance of the species of camellias to confirm their association with the work of Professor E G WaterhouseA Landscape Management Plan should seek to undertake further research and gain expert opinion are required to confirm appropriateness of the Jacaranda trees on the site. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (8) Upper eastern grassed banks and terraces | The steep grassed banks should be retained and existing view preserved. |\n| (9) Lower eastern lawn terrace and eastern walk | The steep grassed banks of the lower terrace should be retained as an open space permitting views to the harbour and views to the house from the harbourPlantings to the south should be consistent with the Victorian eraOpportunities for reinstating Indigenous vegetation should be investigated. |\n| (10) Northeast gardens and walks | The sandstone outcrops should be retained and not concealedThe meandering paths should be retainedPlantings should be appropriate to the Victorian era and should also address loss of privacy to the northern boundary from tree lossThe poorly executed sandstone paving on north-eastern and lower grounds should be reviewed. |\n| (11) Northeastern terrace | The stone wall and paving should be reconstructed with a rustic theme, providing a focus for the existing rock outcropCourses should follow the horizontal bias with no vertical elementsPlantings should be consistent with the Victorian era, promote Indigenous vegetation, provide privacy, and retain filtered views. |\n| (12) Clifftop garden | The wild character of the garden should be retained without impeding on viewsThe safety aspects of the garden should be reviewedIndigenous vegetation should be promoted. |\n| (13) Foreshore and cliffs | The foreshore and cliff line with sandstone face should be retainedIndigenous plantings should be promotedSafety and design of the access pathways that lead to the boat harbour and bathing pool below should be reviewed. |\n| (14) Harbourside ruins | The boat harbour, bathing pool, boatsheds and retaining walls should be retained and conservedAn archival record of existing structures should be undertakenFurther physical studies of this area should be undertakenExisting retaining walls should be stabilised |\n| (15) Southern lawn terrace and rockeries | The stone flagged areas, rockeries, and terraces should be retained and conservedThe steel pipe handrail should be upgraded to comply with current access codes. |\n| (16) Western garden including hedged lawn and kitchen garden | The hedged lawn and kitchen garden should be retained and conserved |\n| (17) Paths and stairs | Existing paths and stairs should be retainedA landscape masterplan should study existing paths and stairs and propose a plan considering hierarchy of paths, detailing of edging, consolidation, and cohesive palette of materialsrandom stone paving to lower areas should be removed and replaced with bitumenThe drainage of paths away from the building line should be ensured |\n| (18) Significant trees | All significant trees and plants identified in this HMP and Landscape Management Plan should be retained and protected.A program for succession of identified plantings should be undertaken, particularly to address loss of tree canopy and privacy along Kirribilli Avenue. |\n| (19) Victorian Rustic Gothic style features | The stylistic features of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture should be retained, protected and conserved. |\n| (20) North elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe entry porch in its current configuration should be retained. Steps may be altered but should remain symmetrical to the porchDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (21) East elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in its current configuration should be retained, including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (22) South elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in current configuration should be retained including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to nineteenth century wallsThe timber storeroom may be removed, and the original verandah may be reinstated. |\n| (23) West elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedRoom and gabled roof over the northwest corner of building should be retainedSingle storey parapet wing may be removed or alteredThe service wing may be removed or alteredThe awning entry may be removed or alteredDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (24) Roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods | The roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods should be retained and conservedIf required install, safety anchors on internal slopes. |\n| (25) Masonry walls | Masonry walls and associated elements should be retained and conservedRepairs and conservation work to masonry walls should follow traditional repair methodsDo not use cement render on pre-1950s wallsPaint finish should be retained. |\n| (26) Verandah | The verandah and associated elements should be retained and conservedDo not infill any part of the verandahStoreroom/infill to verandah may be retained or removedFuture replacement of roof should be corrugated copper. |\n| (27) Entry porch including front doors | The entry porch and doors should be retained and conservedThe entry steps may be altered but the symmetry and stone fabric should be retainedThe front doors may be relocated to its original location. The doorframe and fanlight should be retainedStone flagging to interior may be replaced with unglazed tessellated tile. |\n| (28) Bay window including parapet and flat roof | The bay window and its elements should be retained and conserved |\n| (29) French doors | The French doors and associated elements including hardware should be retained and conservedReinstatement of the earlier narrow doors to eastern elevation is not requiredSteel security doors have been designed sympathetically to the doors and should be retainedDo not modify early doors to include double glazing. |\n| (30) Windows | The early casement windows, Gothic windows (porch) and multi-paned double hung windows should be retained and conservedAssociated elements including hardware should be retainedDo not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (31) Shutters | The early shutters (pre-1957) should be retained and conservedShutters of later date may be removed or modified.Do not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (32) Post 1950s additions | Additions may be retained or demolishedIf removed, the original details of the walls should be reinstated. |\n| (33) Service wing | Service wing may be retained or demolished. |\n| (34) Entry hall including Entry lobby | The entry hall and lobby in its current configuration should be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (35) Drawing room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating original wall between roomsSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (36) Dining room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating the opening size between dining and drawing roomSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (37) Prime Minister’s study | Should be retained in its current configurationThe glass doors to the east may be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (38) Green room | Should be retained in its current configurationShelving to either side of fireplace may be altered or removed and former door in this area may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (39) Hallways and stairs | Should be retained in its current configurationThe narrow hall should not be reinstated at ground floorSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (40) Family room | Should be retained in its current configurationSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (41) Bedrooms | Should be retained in its current configurationFireplace may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved. |\n| (42) Bathrooms | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (43) Spaces in service wing | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (44) Internal joinery, including doors, architraves, and skirtings | All pre-1950s joinery should be retained and conserved in situ to reflect the different periods of developmentWhere joinery is polished, polish finish should be retained and not painted overConservation works should consider reinstating the polished/grained finish to early joinery. |\n| (45) Services | See 7.7.12 |\n| (46) Garage | The garage may be altered internally. |\n| (47) Guard house | The meandering paths should be retainedThe guard house may be altered or demolished. |\n| (48) Storeroom | The storeroom may be altered or demolished. |\n| (49) Moveable items | See 7.7.18 |\n\n## 7.9 New work\n\n### 7.9.1 Adaptive re-use\n\nKirribilli House and Garden was constructed as a residence in 1856 and used as a residence during the key period of significance Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920. The site has continued its residential function when it became the Official Sydney Residence of the Prime Minister in 1957, hence the current use is consistent with the historical significance of the site. The residential use is evidenced in the planning of the house and garden as well as its physical fabric.\n\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | The most compatible use for Kirribilli House and Garden is a residential useKirribilli House and Garden should be retained as an Official Sydney Establishment of the Prime Minister and its ownership continued by the CommonwealthBefore considering adaptive re-use an assessment should be made of the compatibility of new use to the site’s historical function, potential loss of associations with prime ministerial roles and potential impacts (physical and visual) on heritage significanceFuture adaptive reuse should also consider hierarchy of public and private use of parts of the site and where feasible allowing public access. |\n| ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.2 New development, additions and infills\n\nThe original house built in 1856 was located on the smoothed platform above the rock outcrop centred on the site. The house was extended to the west in the latter two phases. Minor infills and extension to the house have occurred also taken place during this time. Outbuildings were located as a garden structure on the central garden area, to the west of the site and harbourside structures to the eastern boundary. There is opportunity to restore the ruins of the harbourside structures. Modifications or replacement of the service wing from 1957 is possible. Elsewhere on the site, there is limited opportunity for development without potential impact to heritage significance. Any development of the laundry building which is owned by OOSG has potential to impact the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. There is additional opportunity for development if the site was consolidated with Admiralty House (investigated in Kirribilli House Master Plan Report (Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd, 1981). Opportunities should be considered through a new masterplan study.\n\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | There is minimal opportunity for new development, additions and infills at Kirribilli House and GardenUse of existing spaces should be maximised prior to considering alternatives to developAll other opportunities that have little or no impacts to heritage values should be exhausted prior to considering new developmentRestoration of the harbourside structures should be considered.There is opportunity to modify or replace the service wing from 1957New development should consider the existing architectural style, forms and masses and ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic and do not compete with the Rustic Victorian character of the placeNew work should adopt the principle of reversibility to mitigate potential impactsNew work should use high quality of materials |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is not a static house museum and it should continue to evolve with each incumbent as the requirements for its use change. Changes to the historical uses, however, should be carefully assessed for compatibility of spaces and only implemented once all other options have been investigated and discarded.\n\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | Change of use to spaces are permissibleAreas of low significance have high tolerance and flexibility for changesAreas of high significance have low tolerance and flexibility and compatible uses should be first considered before considering options. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.10 Conservation in accordance with significance\n\nMuch of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House is embodied in the physical fabric of the place. Section 5.4.1 of this HMP sets out the grading scale for significant elements ranging from those elements of exceptional significance down to those that are intrusive. It follows that conservation action should be related to an element’s relative level of significance. Grading of significant fabric in each element/building is included in 5.4.3 and guidelines for managing change are identified in Section 5.4.2.\n\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | Much of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House and Garden is embodied in the physical elements and fabric of the place. Conservation action should be related to the elements or fabric’s level of significanceAny repair, conservation or reconstruction works to significant elements or facades must be undertaken with appropriate direction by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, architect and/or relevant materials specialist/s or conservator and with reference to historical documentation. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n## 7.11 Conservation of Materials\n\n### 7.11.1 Traditional materials\n\nKirribilli House and Garden consists of several traditional materials including slate, lead, copper, sandstone, brick, cast iron and timber.\n\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | A heritage architect should be engaged to undertake works and provide advice on to traditional materialsWhen repairing or altering traditional materials, a qualified and experienced traditional trades contractor should be engaged to undertake the work or supervise the work. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.2 Reconstruction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has many details that are missing or have been undertaken in an inappropriate manner. When these works are proposed to be reconstructed, the work should be based on documentary evidence of an earlier state.\n\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | Reconstruction is appropriate only where an element is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the elementReconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection. |\n| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes\n\nWhen repainting, the choice of paint colours should be based on an understanding of original colours and finishes used – through documentary and analysis of physical evidence (e.g., paint scrapes). \nIf repainting is required, original colour schemes should be re-instated for significant elements. \nA colour palette and interior design advice was provided in the 2016 HMP and should be used to guide future works.\n\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | Refer to Kirribilli House – Colour Palette and Interior Design Heritage Advice, Appendix O. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods\n\nThere are areas of the site that have been inappropriately repaired or conserved. These include the cement mortar repairs to masonry and conservation works where details are exact replicas. \nWhen opportunity arises, undertake works to remedy areas. Works should be prioritised and only those items identified as intrusive should be modified.\n\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | When practical, previous inappropriate repair and conservation methods should be remedied with the use of traditional methods according to priority. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP\n\nThis HMP should be reviewed every five years and considered for full update every ten years or when large-scale changes are proposed that are not considered in this HMP. The implementation of the HMP should also be reviewed every five years.\n\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | This HMP should be reviewed every five years (or when large-scale changes are proposed that have not already been considered in this HMP)This HMP should be reviewed every ten years and considered for a full update.The implementation of the HMP should be reviewed every five years (assessing works priorities, if the HMP is actually implementing the policies and strategies, and the condition of the place and the condition of its listed Commonwealth Heritage values – see table below).These reviews should be documented as reports with findings and actions clearly documented, |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n```html\n

Commonwealth Heritage Values

Reporting and monitoring

Criterion A - Processes – Attributes: The fabric and form of the house

When reviews are undertaken on the effectiveness of the implementation of the HMP policies, these should be applied to the Commonwealth heritage values through a qualitative assessment of the retention of the attributes listed against each relevant criterion (A, B, D, E, G and H). The success in retaining these attributes and thus the associated values that reside in them should be documented as reports with clearly stated findings and actions.

Criterion B - Rarity – Attributes: The house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour

Criterion D - Characteristic values – Attributes: The building's form, its external styling and details, and its early and original fabric

Criterion E - Aesthetic characteristics – Attributes:

The architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour

Criterion G - Social value – Attributes: The house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days

Criterion H - Significant people – Attributes: The whole of the building, both internally and externally

\n```\n\n \n\n### 7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis\n\nA review of reports for the site has identified knowledge gaps. Opportunities should be sought for these to be addressed as part of future investigations and assessments.\n\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | Opportunities should be sought to fill the following knowledge gaps:The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysisAlthough there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be locatedDiscussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruinsDiscussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listedDemonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistasConfirmation of the position and detail of the original staircaseThe detail of the original front doorThe detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevationThe early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of StudyThe detail of the original verandahThe detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracketDetails of the original drawing room windowsThe early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and gratesThe detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbourDetails of original fencing and gates, |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n \n\n| Policy | Responsibility | Priority | Timing |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- |\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | PM&C to adopt and implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C to notify, review and consult | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | PM&C to engage appropriate experts | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | PM&C to induct | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | PM&C to manage | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 9:Saftey | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 10: Access for people with a disability | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | PM&C to plan and coordinate | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 13. Security | PM&C to provide | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 14 Security infrastructure | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 16. Setting | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 18. Significant views | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | PM&C to undertake | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 21-23. Grounds generally / House generally / Maintenance | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 24 Emergency works policy | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 26. General | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 30. Services | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | PM&C to engage appropriate specialists | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 33. Public access | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 35. Movable items | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | PM&C to develop | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 38. | PM&C to conserve and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-10 years |\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-5 years |\n\n## 7.12 Implementation plan\n\nThe following implementation plan should be utilised for the policies listed above.\n\n \n\n# 8.0 Maintenance Schedule\n\n## 8.1 Introduction\n\nRegular, on-going inspection and maintenance is vital to the longevity of heritage buildings and to preserve their heritage significance. The following section provides the required catch up maintenance, a cyclical inspection and maintenance schedule.\n\n## 8.2 Catch-up Maintenance\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been well maintained, resulting in a good overall condition. Conservation of the exterior stonework has been carried out within the last five years. A few catch-up maintenance items were noted. Cleaning of the exterior has been added to the maintenance schedule in Section 8.3.","sortOrder":136},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP","content":"### 7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP\n\nWhilst Kirribilli House and Garden remains a Commonwealth property, this HMP must be reviewed at least once every five years in accordance with Section 341X (1) of the EPBC Act. The review should assess the content of the plan and determine its effectiveness in protecting the heritage values of the place and make recommendations for updating or re-writing the plan as required. The review is to be undertaken with assistance from a heritage specialist and be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and Regulations for the review of management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places. The review is to focus on amending responsibilities, include commentary on any works undertaken since the last HMP review, and consider any changes or planned changes of use.\n\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | The conservation policies set out in this plan should be adopted by PM&C and implementedRelevant policies should be cross referenced to other management documentsA copy of the HMP should be retained on siteThis HMP must be updated every five years by PM&C with the assistance of a heritage specialist to ensure it remains relevant to the use of Kirribilli House and Garden and to ensure statutory compliance is maintainedThis HMP should also be updated after any significant changes to the site have occurred. At a minimum, the review must:Assess whether the plan is consistent with the Commonwealth Heritage management principles in force at the timeAssess whether the plan is effective in protecting and conserving the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenMake recommendations for the improved protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenThe listed Commonwealth Heritage values will be monitored, reviewed and reported on annually as part of the PM&C Annual Reporting Cycle. This information will be provided to DCCEEW every three years, as outlined in the PM&C Heritage Strategy. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":137},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease","content":"### 7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth asset on Commonwealth land within NSW, managed by PM&C. If the asset leaves Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), ongoing heritage protection would be required under S341ZE of the EPBC Act. An update and revision of this HMP would then be required to accurately consider and reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements.\n\nResponsibility for undertaking the review of the HMP should fall to the new owner and should be undertaken within six months of the sale, and/or prior to the undertaking of any changes to Kirribilli House and Garden. To ensure that this requirement is recognised by the new owner it should form part of the sale/transfer documents between PM&C and the new owner.\n\nUnder S341ZE of the EPBC Act, PM&C must notify the Minister of the proposed divestment and establish an appropriate mechanism to protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place during the sale/transfer process and after the property has left Commonwealth control (such as a covenant \nin the sale/transfer documents, or equivalent arrangements).\n\nA copy of the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment as NSW heritage legislation would apply in the absence of Commonwealth ownership. The heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden should therefore be nominated by PM&C for formal protection under the NSW heritage system in the event of divestment.\n\nConsultation with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment will be necessary at least 12 months prior to the property leaving Commonwealth ownership, to ensure the appropriate nominations are in place to provide ongoing heritage protection. PM&C should also consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and submit the consultation outcomes to Heritage NSW.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been assessed as having outstanding heritage values and thus potentially reaching the threshold for inclusion on the NHL. Along with inclusion on the NSW SHR, a NHL listing would provide an additional layer of protection of the heritage values of the site. It is recommended that the site should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL.\n\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C must notify the Minister responsible for heritage of the intention to divest or lease the site, in accordance with the timeframes specified under S341ZE of the EPBC ActThis HMP should be reviewed to reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements. The HMP should be updated within six months of a Change of Ownership or Lease agreementIf the site is to leave Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and EnvironmentConsultation should occur with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the consultation outcomes submitted to Heritage NSWKirribilli House and Garden should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL and NSW SHR. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":138},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades","content":"### 7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades\n\nThis HMP was prepared using a range of expert advice. For successful long-term interpretation and implementation of this Plan, continuity of competent advice is important to avoid implications from \nill-advised decisions.\n\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | Persons with suitable expertise and experience in conservation projects should be engaged for the resolution of conservation issues, as well as for input into the design and administration of conservation work on the place. Expert persons may include heritage architects, heritage landscape architects, heritage consultants, traditional (stone/slate/plaster) material contractors and arborists. |\n| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":139},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.4 Training and resources","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.4 Training and resources","content":"### 7.5.4 Training and resources\n\nOccupants, staff, managers and contractors should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. Contractors should be given a copy of the Heritage Induction Training Manual provided in Appendix P.\n\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | All personnel on site should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and GardenA copy of the Heritage Induction Training Materials should be provided to contractors undertaking works on site. |\n| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":140},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities","content":"### 7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities\n\nOwnership and property management of Kirribilli House and Garden including heritage management and Capital Works is managed by PM&C HOST. Other stakeholder management roles and responsibilities are set out in Section 1.6.\n\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders should be familiar with the roles and responsibilities of each agency. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":141},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.6 Internal works approval and record","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping","content":"### 7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping\n\nWorks undertaken to modify elements of Kirribilli House and Garden need to be approved by PM&C. Works may include:\n\n- determining if EPBC Act referral is necessary\n- determining if a HIA is required for proposed works\n- design works referencing the HMP\n- engaging a specialist to provide advice and undertake the submission of the draft HIA\n- undertaking EPBC Act self-assessment\n- undertaking consultation with DCCEEW\n- undertaking the attainment of approvals\n- commencement of works\n- documentation of the works.\n\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | All works that are the responsibility of PM&C shall be in accordance with the PM&C approval process included in HOW TO: Procurement Address Heritage Considerations (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023)Implementation of policies and works should be recorded by PM&C and records shall be maintained in the ShareHub systemDetails of day to day property maintenance will be kept by JLL with regular reports provided to PM&C filing on its ShareHub system. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":142},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.7 Legislative approvals process","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.7 Legislative approvals process","content":"### 7.5.7 Legislative approvals process\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth property and hence must be managed in accordance with Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations (see Table 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist) and the policies in this HMP. If proposed works are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, approval must be sought through the EPBC Act referral process. The first step in assessing the impact of any proposed works is to prepare a self-assessment, in the format of a Heritage Impact Assessment. This should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist. If the self-assessment finds the action will or might have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage listed values, the action will need to be referred to the Minister for Environment and Water in accordance with Sections 26 and 29 of the EPBC Act. Advice can be sought from DCCEEW on this process and any potential actions. Any proposed works should consider alternatives to minimise impacts to heritage values.\n\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | Kirribilli House and Garden must be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles set out in Schedule 7B of the EPBC RegulationsConsultation should be undertaken early on EPBC Act referrals with DCCEEW heritageApproval should be sought through the EPBC referral processConsideration should be given to alternatives to minimise heritage impacts. |\n| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":143},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) a","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance","content":"### 7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance\n\nIf compliance with the NCC and DDA to meet health, safety and energy efficiency requirements are likely to have a substantial impact on significant fabric or heritage values. Alternative engineered solutions that minimise impacts should be considered and promoted.\n\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | Compliance with the NCC or DDA should focus on responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect the significance. An alternative engineered solution may need to be sought if deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot be met. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to code compliance should be avoided. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":144},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.9 Safety","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.9 Safety","content":"### 7.5.9 Safety\n\nKirribilli House is required to meet current safety standards as both a workplace and as a building. Measures should be taken to balance the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place with these safety obligations. All buildings and workplaces are required to meet various safety codes, including Kirribilli House. As a workplace, PM&C, with staff at the property, are required to ensure a safe work environment at all times and they must ensure that all incumbents and their families, as well as staff and visitors to the property are aware of any safety risks.\n\n| Policy 9. Safety | PM&C should aim to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code Australia (BCA) when they apply. Any strategies or solutions to make Kirribilli House comply with the BCA requirements should balance the cultural significance of the place with the objectives of the BCA. If conflict occurs, external heritage and architectural advice may be requiredWorks that improve the health and safety of the property are necessary, however they should be planned and designed ina sympathetic manner, so they do not negatively impact the Commonwealth Heritage values of the placeShould there be a conflict between the provision of safety measures and the protection of heritage fabric, safety should be the overriding factor which determines the measures necessaryAlternative solutions and compromises should be pursued wherever possible so that a solution is designed which meets both safety and heritage considerationsIt should be noted however, that whilst the BCA does not affect these items retrospectively, WH&S compliance is a current legislative obligationAn asbestos management plan should be implemented for any remaining asbestos. |\n| ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":145},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.10 Access for people with a Disabili","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability","content":"### 7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability\n\nAccess for people with a disability is currently inadequate. Although the DDA is not prescriptive, \nit would be best practice for Kirribilli House to have a policy for providing dignified and easy access. The DDA makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their disability. It is not specifically about buildings, however it has an effect on buildings in which the design and construction prevents access by people with a disability; as the owners of those buildings can be deemed to be discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.\n\n| Policy 10. Access for people with a disability | The following procedure should be applied when considering changes to heritage buildingsReview the significance of the place and identify the elements of greatest significanceUndertake an Access Audit to determine existing and required levels of accessibility; noting that some areas are exempt under the NCCEvaluate access options within a Commonwealth Heritage context. This process includes consultation with authorities and approval of the proposed actionPrepare the access policy or action planImplement the necessary action. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":146},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.11 Planning and coordination","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.11 Planning and coordination","content":"### 7.5.11 Planning and coordination\n\nProposing ad-hoc changes can have an adverse impact on the significant values of the place. \nOver time, when these ad-hoc measures are undertaken independently, without coordination, \nplanning or expert advice, they can result in compounding adverse impact on the values of the place.\n\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | A coordinated and planned approach is necessary when proposing changes to Kirribilli House and GardenThe proposed activity should be reviewed within a holistic management framework to avoid adverse impacts resulting fromad-hoc measures. |\n| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":147},{"sectionNumber":"7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation","content":"### 7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation\n\nEarly consultation with stakeholders is required to comply with the EPBC Regulations when managing heritage places. The EPBC Act requires public notification of a HMP. This consultation process may be undertaken once a final HMP is available. In accordance with the referral assessment process under the EPBC Act, any proposed action that will impact on the heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden must also be notified for public comment.\n\nWhilst works proposed to Kirribilli House do not need to comply with local planning requirements, \nif significant works are proposed, it is recommended that North Sydney Council be informed.\n\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | Relevant stakeholder consultation should be undertaken early as part of managing the heritage place, allowing sufficient time for input in accordance with the EPBC ActThe HMP must be available for public notificationAny proposed action that impacts the heritage values of Kirribilli House must be notified for public commentIf substantial works are proposed, North Sydney Council should be informed as a good neighbour policy. |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\nPlease note that as per Section 1.8.1, public notification and exhibition of the draft HMP were carried out in 2023, prior to the finalisation of this document.","sortOrder":148},{"sectionNumber":"7.6","sectionType":"part","heading":"Security","content":"# 7.0 Managing heritage values\n\n## 7.1 Objectives\n\nThis HMP sets out a structure to assist PM&C for the future management of Kirribilli House and Garden are to ensure the operational duties continue to be carried out, while protecting the identified heritage values and achieving EPBC Act compliance. For historic heritage, it is to conserve the heritage significance through retention of buildings, fabric and landscape elements of significance including the preservation of the historical layout.\n\n## 7.2 Opportunities and constraints\n\nOpportunities and constraints arising from the identified heritage significance of a place establish \na baseline from where other issues such as maintenance and owner requirements can be considered. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance and requirements under the CHL.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden displays a high degree of significance due to the following:\n\n As the Official Sydney residence of the Australian Prime Minister since 1957\n The site evidences the early land grants to prominent Sydney residents\n Association with early public campaign to protect harbourside development in the 1920s\n Association with Admiralty House and forming part of a continued landscape that is Kirribilli Point\n The site has rare qualities as a surviving Victorian Rustic Gothic residence in a harbour setting and includes the remains of one of the earliest bathing pools on Sydney Harbour\n The site has representative values for its Victorian Rustic Gothic style of house and garden and\n The site is important to the people of Australia and is associated with various prime ministers, dignitaries, and significant people in the community.\n\nOpportunities arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Maintain a high quality of care and management of the site\n Interpreting the heritage values of the site including the different phases of development\n Presenting a cohesive landscape of Kirribilli Point that includes both Kirribilli and Admiralty House\n Potential for development or rebuilding of areas that are poorly presented and placing unnecessary pressures on security and privacy of the site and\n Review and re-design of the garden to emphasise heritage significance and introduce other elements of significance of the site.\n\nConstraints arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Operational, security and privacy requirements from the use of the site as a place of residence of the Prime Minister and visits by dignitaries\n Physical constraints of the site for development and\n Maintenance requirements and upkeep of the site resulting from age, building materials, siting, and damp issues of the site.\n\n## 7.3 Planned Works\n\nThe following works are currently planned for this site:\n\n Repairs to the garden paving\n Seawall stabilisation\n\nAll works will be undertaken in accordance with Policy 7 of this HMP.\n\n## 7.4 Policies and guidelines\n\nThe role of the conservation policies in this HMP is to provide specific guidelines for the conservation, on-going care, development and use of Kirribilli House and Garden so that its cultural significance is appropriately maintained, enhanced, and interpreted. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance.\n\n## 7.5 Management Policies\n\n### 7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP\n\nWhilst Kirribilli House and Garden remains a Commonwealth property, this HMP must be reviewed at least once every five years in accordance with Section 341X (1) of the EPBC Act. The review should assess the content of the plan and determine its effectiveness in protecting the heritage values of the place and make recommendations for updating or re-writing the plan as required. The review is to be undertaken with assistance from a heritage specialist and be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and Regulations for the review of management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places. The review is to focus on amending responsibilities, include commentary on any works undertaken since the last HMP review, and consider any changes or planned changes of use.\n\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | The conservation policies set out in this plan should be adopted by PM&C and implementedRelevant policies should be cross referenced to other management documentsA copy of the HMP should be retained on siteThis HMP must be updated every five years by PM&C with the assistance of a heritage specialist to ensure it remains relevant to the use of Kirribilli House and Garden and to ensure statutory compliance is maintainedThis HMP should also be updated after any significant changes to the site have occurred. At a minimum, the review must:Assess whether the plan is consistent with the Commonwealth Heritage management principles in force at the timeAssess whether the plan is effective in protecting and conserving the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenMake recommendations for the improved protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenThe listed Commonwealth Heritage values will be monitored, reviewed and reported on annually as part of the PM&C Annual Reporting Cycle. This information will be provided to DCCEEW every three years, as outlined in the PM&C Heritage Strategy. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth asset on Commonwealth land within NSW, managed by PM&C. If the asset leaves Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), ongoing heritage protection would be required under S341ZE of the EPBC Act. An update and revision of this HMP would then be required to accurately consider and reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements.\n\nResponsibility for undertaking the review of the HMP should fall to the new owner and should be undertaken within six months of the sale, and/or prior to the undertaking of any changes to Kirribilli House and Garden. To ensure that this requirement is recognised by the new owner it should form part of the sale/transfer documents between PM&C and the new owner.\n\nUnder S341ZE of the EPBC Act, PM&C must notify the Minister of the proposed divestment and establish an appropriate mechanism to protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place during the sale/transfer process and after the property has left Commonwealth control (such as a covenant \nin the sale/transfer documents, or equivalent arrangements).\n\nA copy of the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment as NSW heritage legislation would apply in the absence of Commonwealth ownership. The heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden should therefore be nominated by PM&C for formal protection under the NSW heritage system in the event of divestment.\n\nConsultation with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment will be necessary at least 12 months prior to the property leaving Commonwealth ownership, to ensure the appropriate nominations are in place to provide ongoing heritage protection. PM&C should also consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and submit the consultation outcomes to Heritage NSW.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been assessed as having outstanding heritage values and thus potentially reaching the threshold for inclusion on the NHL. Along with inclusion on the NSW SHR, a NHL listing would provide an additional layer of protection of the heritage values of the site. It is recommended that the site should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL.\n\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C must notify the Minister responsible for heritage of the intention to divest or lease the site, in accordance with the timeframes specified under S341ZE of the EPBC ActThis HMP should be reviewed to reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements. The HMP should be updated within six months of a Change of Ownership or Lease agreementIf the site is to leave Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and EnvironmentConsultation should occur with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the consultation outcomes submitted to Heritage NSWKirribilli House and Garden should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL and NSW SHR. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades\n\nThis HMP was prepared using a range of expert advice. For successful long-term interpretation and implementation of this Plan, continuity of competent advice is important to avoid implications from \nill-advised decisions.\n\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | Persons with suitable expertise and experience in conservation projects should be engaged for the resolution of conservation issues, as well as for input into the design and administration of conservation work on the place. Expert persons may include heritage architects, heritage landscape architects, heritage consultants, traditional (stone/slate/plaster) material contractors and arborists. |\n| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.4 Training and resources\n\nOccupants, staff, managers and contractors should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. Contractors should be given a copy of the Heritage Induction Training Manual provided in Appendix P.\n\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | All personnel on site should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and GardenA copy of the Heritage Induction Training Materials should be provided to contractors undertaking works on site. |\n| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities\n\nOwnership and property management of Kirribilli House and Garden including heritage management and Capital Works is managed by PM&C HOST. Other stakeholder management roles and responsibilities are set out in Section 1.6.\n\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders should be familiar with the roles and responsibilities of each agency. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping\n\nWorks undertaken to modify elements of Kirribilli House and Garden need to be approved by PM&C. Works may include:\n\n- determining if EPBC Act referral is necessary\n- determining if a HIA is required for proposed works\n- design works referencing the HMP\n- engaging a specialist to provide advice and undertake the submission of the draft HIA\n- undertaking EPBC Act self-assessment\n- undertaking consultation with DCCEEW\n- undertaking the attainment of approvals\n- commencement of works\n- documentation of the works.\n\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | All works that are the responsibility of PM&C shall be in accordance with the PM&C approval process included in HOW TO: Procurement Address Heritage Considerations (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023)Implementation of policies and works should be recorded by PM&C and records shall be maintained in the ShareHub systemDetails of day to day property maintenance will be kept by JLL with regular reports provided to PM&C filing on its ShareHub system. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.7 Legislative approvals process\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth property and hence must be managed in accordance with Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations (see Table 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist) and the policies in this HMP. If proposed works are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, approval must be sought through the EPBC Act referral process. The first step in assessing the impact of any proposed works is to prepare a self-assessment, in the format of a Heritage Impact Assessment. This should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist. If the self-assessment finds the action will or might have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage listed values, the action will need to be referred to the Minister for Environment and Water in accordance with Sections 26 and 29 of the EPBC Act. Advice can be sought from DCCEEW on this process and any potential actions. Any proposed works should consider alternatives to minimise impacts to heritage values.\n\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | Kirribilli House and Garden must be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles set out in Schedule 7B of the EPBC RegulationsConsultation should be undertaken early on EPBC Act referrals with DCCEEW heritageApproval should be sought through the EPBC referral processConsideration should be given to alternatives to minimise heritage impacts. |\n| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance\n\nIf compliance with the NCC and DDA to meet health, safety and energy efficiency requirements are likely to have a substantial impact on significant fabric or heritage values. Alternative engineered solutions that minimise impacts should be considered and promoted.\n\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | Compliance with the NCC or DDA should focus on responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect the significance. An alternative engineered solution may need to be sought if deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot be met. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to code compliance should be avoided. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.9 Safety\n\nKirribilli House is required to meet current safety standards as both a workplace and as a building. Measures should be taken to balance the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place with these safety obligations. All buildings and workplaces are required to meet various safety codes, including Kirribilli House. As a workplace, PM&C, with staff at the property, are required to ensure a safe work environment at all times and they must ensure that all incumbents and their families, as well as staff and visitors to the property are aware of any safety risks.\n\n| Policy 9. Safety | PM&C should aim to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code Australia (BCA) when they apply. Any strategies or solutions to make Kirribilli House comply with the BCA requirements should balance the cultural significance of the place with the objectives of the BCA. If conflict occurs, external heritage and architectural advice may be requiredWorks that improve the health and safety of the property are necessary, however they should be planned and designed ina sympathetic manner, so they do not negatively impact the Commonwealth Heritage values of the placeShould there be a conflict between the provision of safety measures and the protection of heritage fabric, safety should be the overriding factor which determines the measures necessaryAlternative solutions and compromises should be pursued wherever possible so that a solution is designed which meets both safety and heritage considerationsIt should be noted however, that whilst the BCA does not affect these items retrospectively, WH&S compliance is a current legislative obligationAn asbestos management plan should be implemented for any remaining asbestos. |\n| ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability\n\nAccess for people with a disability is currently inadequate. Although the DDA is not prescriptive, \nit would be best practice for Kirribilli House to have a policy for providing dignified and easy access. The DDA makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their disability. It is not specifically about buildings, however it has an effect on buildings in which the design and construction prevents access by people with a disability; as the owners of those buildings can be deemed to be discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.\n\n| Policy 10. Access for people with a disability | The following procedure should be applied when considering changes to heritage buildingsReview the significance of the place and identify the elements of greatest significanceUndertake an Access Audit to determine existing and required levels of accessibility; noting that some areas are exempt under the NCCEvaluate access options within a Commonwealth Heritage context. This process includes consultation with authorities and approval of the proposed actionPrepare the access policy or action planImplement the necessary action. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.11 Planning and coordination\n\nProposing ad-hoc changes can have an adverse impact on the significant values of the place. \nOver time, when these ad-hoc measures are undertaken independently, without coordination, \nplanning or expert advice, they can result in compounding adverse impact on the values of the place.\n\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | A coordinated and planned approach is necessary when proposing changes to Kirribilli House and GardenThe proposed activity should be reviewed within a holistic management framework to avoid adverse impacts resulting fromad-hoc measures. |\n| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation\n\nEarly consultation with stakeholders is required to comply with the EPBC Regulations when managing heritage places. The EPBC Act requires public notification of a HMP. This consultation process may be undertaken once a final HMP is available. In accordance with the referral assessment process under the EPBC Act, any proposed action that will impact on the heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden must also be notified for public comment.\n\nWhilst works proposed to Kirribilli House do not need to comply with local planning requirements, \nif significant works are proposed, it is recommended that North Sydney Council be informed.\n\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | Relevant stakeholder consultation should be undertaken early as part of managing the heritage place, allowing sufficient time for input in accordance with the EPBC ActThe HMP must be available for public notificationAny proposed action that impacts the heritage values of Kirribilli House must be notified for public commentIf substantial works are proposed, North Sydney Council should be informed as a good neighbour policy. |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\nPlease note that as per Section 1.8.1, public notification and exhibition of the draft HMP were carried out in 2023, prior to the finalisation of this document.\n\n \n\n## 7.6 Security\n\n### 7.6.1 Security and privacy\n\nManagement of Kirribilli House and Garden requires a high level of security and privacy.\n\n| Policy 13. Security and privacy | Elements of this HMP will be made available to government departments and external stakeholders on a need-to-know basisSections of the Heritage Induction Training Manual shall be made available to relevant contractors working on the site (see Appendix P) |\n| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.6.2 Security Infrastructure\n\nHome Affairs are responsible for the security infrastructure at Kirribilli House. The Australian Federal Police provide 24-hour physical security for the site. Extenuating circumstances may result in the disturbance of heritage fabric. The security of the property and the people within it will always outweigh any other requirements.\n\n| Policy 14. Security Infrastructure | Security requirements at Kirribilli House are fundamentally important for the safety and functionality of the house and those who work/live thereInterior security measures, such as distress buttons, are a high security priority. For security reasons they need to be placed in prominent, easily reached locations within the rooms, however whenever possible they should not be inserted into significant fabricWhile security is an essential operational requirement, any changes should be implemented in a way that minimises heritage impact where possible. |\n| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n## 7.7 Site-wide policies\n\n### 7.7.1 Conservation principles\n\nThe Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, known as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013), \nis 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. \nThere are seven principles that guide the care of heritage places:\n\n1\\. The place itself is important\n\n2\\. Understand the significance of the place\n\n3\\. Understand the fabric\n\n4\\. Significance should guide decisions\n\n5\\. Do as much as necessary, as little as possible\n\n6\\. Keep records\n\n7\\. Do everything in a logical order.\n\nThe use of the terms, conservation, preservation, reconstruction, adaptation, fabric, maintenance, repair, and compatible use in this report are defined in The Burra Charter.\n\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | Future work on the complex should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and its GuidelinesThe Commonwealth heritage values of the place should be the basis for all future planning and development. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.2 Setting\n\nThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting is a key contributory element to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden and its landmark qualities. The site is part of a continued landscape that includes Admiralty House on Kirribilli Point. Having met CHL Criterion B, D and E that relates to the setting of the place, it is crucial that the policy below be adopted to protect and maintain the CHL values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 16. Setting | The landmark qualities of Kirribilli House and Garden should be retained and protectedThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting should be retained, protected and promoted. This includes such key elements as the Victorian picturesque qualities (sweeping lawn, meandering paths, dramatic views and wild character), topography, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, harbour views and access to waterwayRetain and protect the continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. |\n| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.3 Streetscape\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to Kirribilli Conservation Area, which has been characterised by a mix of small, medium and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and contemporary residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | Kirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to the Kirribilli Conservation Area, hence contributory elements, including Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture, principal elevations, established garden, integration to topography and homogeneous scale, should all be retained and protected. |\n| ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.4 Significant views\n\nKirribilli House within Kirribilli Point forms part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape which is appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from Sydney Opera House, Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point and distant views from Bradley’s Head.\n\nThere is a harmonious relationship between the house, garden and the wider landscape which is the harbour setting. The site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden which include panoramas, framed and filtered views. This contributes to the picturesque setting and is part of the early planning of the site that evidence the key period of significance. Significant views identified have been included in Section 3.2.1 and 3.6 and are defined in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.\n\nFigure 7‑2.\n\n| Policy 18. Significant views | Significant views to and from Kirribilli House and Garden should be maintained and protectedThese include but are not limited to those identified in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.Figure 7‑2. |\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of the harbour near Kirribilli House outlining the significant views](image.178.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑1: Significant views to Kirribilli House from various vantage points of Sydney Harbour (maps.six.nsw.gov.au\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of Kirribilli House grounds highlighting the significant views seen from the property](image.179.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑2: Significant views from Kirribilli House and Garden (maps.six.nsw.gov.au)\n\n### 7.7.5 Heritage curtilage\n\nKirribilli House retains its original physical curtilage which is defined by the existing site boundary. \nThe site has maintained the early subdivision from Admiralty House estate and sold in 1854 to \nAdolph Feez who built the house in 1856. The earliest access to the site is likely to have been from the harbour and the earliest plans included boat access on the eastern boundary. The earliest plans also show access from Kirribilli Avenue.\n\nA visual curtilage can be extended to include vistas from the harbour and beyond from various vantage points.\n\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | The physical curtilage defined by the existing site boundary including access to the foreshore and Kirribilli Avenue should be retained and protectedA visual curtilage that includes vantage points of Kirribilli House and Garden from the harbourside should be retained protected. |\n| ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.6 Masterplans\n\nKirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House are major elements of Kirribilli Point that form part of the continuous Sydney Harbour landscape. There are both built and natural elements from both sites that are historically significant which should be preserved and promoted. Developing a masterplan will assist in identifying areas for future development, planning and maintenance of the site and minimise any detrimental effects from ad-hoc activities.\n\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | When opportunity presents, undertake one masterplan for Kirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House to guide future works. Include a study of the historical development of the site architectural style, massing, geometry/axis, vistas, and circulation (vehicular/pedestrian) studies. The plan should include a review of existing infrastructure/services and develop a site wide methodology for implementing new work. The plan should identify areas of future development including scale, height, massing and materials for potential future development. The masterplan should include a landscape masterplan that incorporates both sites as one landscape element of Kirribilli PointWhen opportunity presents, provide a detailed and updated version of the current Landscape Management Plan for Kirribilli House(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) to include the heritage significance of areas of the garden, identify specific historic elements relating to significance, consolidate information fromGeoff Britton’s landscape assessment (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H) and the AECOM Tree Survey, 2023Using the above information, compile a detailed landscape design for the garden with clear heritage and design principles for each garden areaThe landscape masterplan/updated Landscape Management Plan should study water drainage and succession planting to re-establish the lost tree canopies. It should also identify plant species on site that have high water consumption and propose alternative sub-species (whilst retaining the heritage values) that are more resilient. It should also consider reducing the ongoing erosion of the sandstone cliffA qualified heritage architect, heritage landscape architect and relevant service consultants should be engaged to undertake this workThis HMP should be updated in the next review to include findings from the masterplan and the updated Landscape Management Plan. |\n| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.7 Grounds generally\n\nThe garden at Kirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Vestiges of the pre-European landscape, Phase 1 –19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the grounds generally.\n\n| Policy 21. Grounds generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:- Vestiges of the pre-European landscape evidenced in the indigenous vegetation, rock outcrops, and sandstone cliffs, reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline- Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of thePeople-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque qualities, sweeping lawn, meandering stone paths, terracing, dry stone walling, fencing, dramatic views(panoramic, framed and filtered) and floristic (leaf form, colour, and texture).- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the plantings associated with significant people- Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the instruction of terracing, steps, trees, and plants (exotic and native)Retain a high quality of garden maintenance by engaging trade professionals with proven experience in horticulture, garden maintenance and heritage gardensEngage arborists as required to manage the health and safety of older treesPrior to removal and pruning of trees consider impacts to significant views (panoramas, framed and filtered)Do not introduce new structures in the garden except for temporary structures such as marquees and climbing framesDo not introduce new garden beds or new species of plants to the site unless implemented by a landscape masterplan or management planKeep a record of plants that have been part of memorials, functions, planted or gifted by dignitariesBuilt memorials should be avoided in the garden to retain the Victorian style and residential significance of the place. Australian artwork/sculptures may be incorporated if they are sympathetic to the significance of the placeOutdoor furniture, fixtures and fittings should be sympathetic of the heritage values of the place. Retain cast iron urns and sundialsRetain and repair as necessary the boundary fences to the sitePrior to implementing the Landscape Management Plan(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) for detailed works to hard and soft landscaping, resolve the inconsistencies of heritage landscape principles from Geoff Britton’s assessments updated information from AECOM’s Tree Survey 2023 through a landscape masterplan/detailed management plan or landscape design. |\n| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.8 House generally\n\nKirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 \n(Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the house generally.\n\n| Policy 22. House generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque setting, modest scale, irregular massing, steeply pitched gabled roofs with highly decorated bargeboards, prominent gable, gabled dormer, slate roof, textured masonry walling, bay windows, timber verandah and tall medieval looking chimneys, fireplaces, timber joinery- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the single storey addition (wet), bay window replacements to double hung window, gabled roof, and room to first floor, hallway widened, addition of bathrooms, garagePhase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the service wing, single storey additions to either side of porch, replacement of shutters, verandah infill for storeroom, timber valence reconstruction, security screens, eastern gable windows, main stair reconstruction, and conservation worksConserve and promote the relationship of the house to the garden such as verandahs and garden elementsRetain and protect the internal arrangement of spaces, inter-relationships of rooms and volumes of spacesRetain and conserve the hierarchy of public and private spacesThe house may be altered to suit the function as an Official Prime Minister’s Residence whilst respecting the heritage values of the placeNew work should not replicate previous styles but be of a contemporary style and sympathetic to the heritage values of the placeReconstruction works should be identifiable through subtle variation in detail and should be dated. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.9 Maintenance and repair\n\nSystematic maintenance will conserve significant fabric longer for the ultimate benefit of future generations. A site wide maintenance plan is provided in Section 8.0.\n\n| Policy 23. Maintenance | Implement the General Maintenance Plan included in this HMP in accordance with the policies contained in this HMPThe maintenance plan should be adopted by JLL under their contractual obligationsThe maintenance plan should be integrated into the PM&C asset maintenance processes. A Heritage Asset works/maintenance record should also be prepared and maintained for each activityPrior to undertaking any maintenance works, confirmed that the activity proposed is maintenance and complies with the policies an in this HMP. This should be confirmed by PM&CA dedicated budget should be implemented to guide on-going maintenance work on the significant elements identified in this HMPAdequate funding arrangements for maintenance and urgent repairs identified in this HMP should be put in placeIncrease rate of maintenance following inclement weather such as high winds and storms. Inspect all weatherproofing elements of the buildingsEnsure all contractors are made aware of the heritage values of the place by providing the Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P) to all contractors on site.Undertake a structural condition assessment of the site every five years by a qualified structural engineer. |\n| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.10 Emergency Works\n\nEmergency works should always be undertaken as a priority, wherever possible they should seek to be completely reversible. Emergency works (such as rectifying storm damage, repairing water leaks or attending electrical malfunctions) are a necessary aspect of managing the maintenance, safety and condition of Kirribilli House. By their very nature, they often have to be undertaken quickly with little planning. If works occur (due to safety or security reasons) that are not sympathetic, such work should be ‘undone’ as soon as practicable.\n\n| Policy 24. Emergency Works | Emergency works must always be undertaken as quickly as possible.Any emergency works should be recorded by PM&C, with the issue, condition prior to repairs and condition after repairs (including photographs) recorded as a minimum.PM&C, as the agency responsible for contractors carrying out emergency works to the fixed building elements, should be notified as soon as possible to inspect the temporary repairs and decide on a more permanent solution.All emergency works should be reversible whenever possible. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience\n\nSustainable and resilient methods are required to manage the adverse effects of climate change. The skilled craftsmanship and composition of old materials result in heritage buildings that are durable. The re-use of existing buildings and fabric reduces the embodied energy required for new development. Hence, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings should be considered as a first measure before new development is considered. An energy audit/thermal assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden will identify areas energy expenditure.\n\nThe Australian Public Service (APS) must comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy. APS Net Zero will be achieved by actively reducing emissions from APS operations as well as through offsets. This initiative will also encourage transparency by requiring Commonwealth entities to publicly report on their emissions, whilst supporting the uplift of climate capability across the APS.\n\nExtreme weather patterns in the future mean that there will be periods of extreme drought and wet weather as well as erratic events and increased climate induced disasters. Environmental factors specific to Kirribilli House and Garden in the future include:\n\n- Increase in ambient humidity levels and condensation within buildings leading to mould and damp\n- Dry weather patterns creating shrinking of fabric and cracks to structure\n- Intense rainfalls and storms causing inefficient water drainage from buildings and areas of the garden, damage to property\n- Long periods of rain\n- The existing rising damp conditions to worsen.\n\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience(a) Assessments/audits | Comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy.Should the opportunity arise, undertake the following assessments/audits:- Undertake an initial and periodic energy, water and thermal comfort assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden to identify areas of deficiencies, ideally over a year (to account for season)- Assess the existing ventilation in buildings and implement methods of improvement to minimise humidity in buildings e.g., sub floor ventilation- Assess rain and surface water runoff across the whole site and in buildings. This may include installing sensors to measure ground moisture. Implement improvements especially during torrential rainfall events- Assess the viability of measures to reduce water and energy consumption in the garden (additional rainwater tanks, automatic watering, solar powered garden lights, drought tolerant plants and grasses). |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (b) Implementation | Implement low impact measures sympathetic to heritage values such as upgrades to fittings and fixtures (e.g., light fittings, water closets, taps) and services (air conditioning units, gas fireplaces)Increase the rate of maintenance to existing buildings during periods of extreme weather eventsPromote adaptive reuse of buildings. Demonstrate and exhaust all other measures to ensure existing buildings are used efficiently prior to constructing new buildings and structuresSolar panels should be avoided on the main house structure to avoid impact on significant views of the house. Solar panels may be installed on the laundry building if an HIA has determined that physical and visual impacts are minimal. The works will require permission from OOSGGNew work/developments should incorporate sustainable design and construction methodsUndertake any catch-up maintenance activities. Ensure that cyclical maintenance and emergency maintenance are activated immediately. |\n| (c) Management plans | Develop a Sustainability Action Plan for the site and include all sustainability measures. Include a risk register and identify risks to heritage elements including loss of heritage significant plant species, loss of lawns, property damage from high winds, erosion impact to garden, risk to heritage fabric from damage, increase in pests and diseases in garden. Include measures to educate staff, contractors on creating an awareness of sustainability issues.Develop and implement a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the site that identifies potential risks to the site and its heritage values to prepare Kirribilli House and Garden for future events. This plan should identify elements of the site that maybe sacrificial losses. |\n\n### 7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management\n\nIt is recognised that Kirribilli House and Garden is located within a larger cultural landscape of high social, cultural, and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples and will apply a precautionary approach to the management of heritage values.\n\n| Policy 26. General | The overarching aim for the management of the Indigenous heritage values should be done in partnership with Indigenous stakeholders.Consider the preparation of an interpretation strategy covering intangible Indigenous heritage values in the context of the broader intangible cultural landscape. This should be undertaken with Indigenous consultation.Indigenous stakeholders should be consulted regarding any potential impacts if any Indigenous heritage values are identified in relation to Kirribilli House and Garden. Consultation, in all instances, should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Ask First Guidelines.Should a plan be formulated for the management of the garden, there may be an opportunity for consideration to be given to Indigenous plantings to be added to the existing landscape, to allow for interpretation of the history of the location. Such a garden plan should be guided by the findings of the interpretation strategy and the consultation outcomes of the intangible cultural landscape values. |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nPrior to commencement of any new development activities/works within Kirribilli House and Garden, all relevant site personnel and contractors should be made aware of Indigenous heritage values. The discovery of unexpected Indigenous heritage should trigger ”Stop Works” as detailed in Policy 27.\n\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | Unexpected Indigenous Heritage Finds Procedure (excluding human skeletal remains)1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the artefact/site must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing).2. Notification - The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management about the discovery and seek advice.3. Impact Assessment - If required, undertake an assessment for the proposed activity/works in accordance with relevant heritage guidelines.4. Impact Mitigation - Implement management actions detailed in the assessment.5. Reporting - Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the new site and any implemented management actions.Unexpected Human Skeletal Remains Procedure - For any confirmed or suspected human skeletal remains, the following procedure should be followed:1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the remains must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing). The remains must not be left unattended.2. Notification: The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management of the discovery. They, in turn, must notify the Coroner’s Office and the Military Police, who will notify appropriate local authorities. If it is confirmed by these authorities that the remains are Indigenous Ancestral Remains, they should, as soon as practicable, report the existence of the remains to Indigenous stakeholders and relevant State-based heritage authorities.3. Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Management should consult with Indigenous stakeholders and an appropriately experienced and qualified heritage consultant. In general, the first management option should be avoidance of the location. If this is not possible, then relocation of the remains to a designated keeping place, or reburial at a location near to the original (but within an area that will not be impacted) should be undertaken. The wishes of the Indigenous stakeholders should guide these actions. The excavation and handling of any Indigenous skeletal remains should follow best practice scientific guidelines (e.g., NSW Heritage Office, 1998).4. GEMS Update:- Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the remains and implemented management actions. |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nConsider the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process, acknowledging security and safety constraints.\n\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | Kirribilli House and Garden is an active, high security area with access needing to be arranged in advance through appropriate personnel, with all visitors subject to security clearance and induction processes. Existing security and induction procedures notwithstanding, should Indigenous values be identified in the future, the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process should then be developed, which could potentially provide approval for on-site cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies. In general, should any interested Indigenous community members wish to enter for cultural reasons, they should contact the appropriate management contact who should facilitate the visit. |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nIndigenous stakeholders should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any public disclosures pertaining to the Indigenous heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | The investigation of intangible Indigenous cultural heritage values, and in the event that finds occur during future works, may result in the identification of Indigenous values relating to Kirribilli House and Garden. Should information regarding such Indigenous heritage values be proposed for release into the public domain, Indigenous stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on any disclosures prior to their release. All comments received should be considered and inform the final disseminated disclosure. |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.13 Services\n\nThe insertion of any new services should be carefully considered and consider the original structure and fabric of the heritage buildings to minimise impact.\n\n| Policy 30. Services | Services should be minimised in their extent and carefully planned to minimise damage to significant fabricNew, replacement and upgraded services should use existing conduits and ducts wherever possibleCeiling-mounted fittings, such as detectors and light fittings with minimal fixings are recommendedSurface-mounted vertical risers are permitted, provided their style and finish is compatible with the cultural significance of the space through which they pass. Wherever possible, vertical risers should be in minor spaces of least cultural significanceLight fittings and electrical accessories (switch plates, GPOs) should not be period reproductions but discrete modern fixturesAir-conditioning units should be discreet in location and appearance. Any associated works should be positioned to avoid damage to significant fabricExternal air-conditioning units should be concealed from view, not located on the front façade of the building, and positioned to avoid damage to significant external fabric. |\n| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring\n\nAreas of high archaeological potential have been identified at the subject site. If excavation is proposed in these areas, further investigation by a suitably qualified archaeologist would be required prior to commencement of works.\n\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | Any excavation in areas of high archaeological potential should be carried out under archaeological supervision by a qualified archaeologistIf underfloor deposits are planned to be removed, engage an archaeologist to remove and assess to determine the presence of any artefactsIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, implement an unexpected finds procedure must be followed (see Figure 4‑27). |\n| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.15 Carparking and circulation\n\nThe site has limited potential for incorporating carparking and vehicular access without impacting on the garden setting of the site. The driveway loop originates from the Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 \n(Official Residence of the Prime Minister) and is graded as an item of moderate significance, \nhence may be modified for future requirements.\n\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | An increase to the number of carparking spaces currently provided is not recommended i.e., spaces for permanent garaged vehicles and informal parking of cars on drivewayThe driveway loop may be modified for future carparking and vehicular access but must have little to no impact on the garden setting. |\n| ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.16 Public access\n\nThere is limited public access due to security and privacy reasons. However, the site holds many functions where large number of people can attend the site at any one time. Open days of the house and garden are also held. It is important that the heritage significance of the site is communicated, and significant fabric is protected during these times by implementing a Visitor Management Strategy.\n\n| Policy 33. Public access | Undertake and implement a Visitor Management Strategy for the site.Public open days should occur every year however the level at which the property is open to the public should be decided in conjunction with the incumbentsAt a minimum the grounds should be open for inspection during open daysCare should be taken to protect artworks and furniture during open daysInterpretative materials should be available on the day |\n| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.17 Archival recording\n\nAn archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved for removal should be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage specialist in accordance with the Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, \nrevised 2006) guideline. The record should aim to capture the item prior to, during and after the proposed works. A copy of the archival record be provided to the local council and the NLA.\n\nCurrently there are several sites that hold vast amount of historical information relating to the site including, State Records, NLA, State Library of NSW, Stanton Library and PM&C. This information should be consolidated, and a central repository of information should be established.\n\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | Undertake an archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved to be demolished. The works should comply with Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, revised 2006) guidelineProvide a copy of the archival record to PM&C, council and NLA(with redacted information on security)Establish a central repository of information of historical data. |\n| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.18 Movable items\n\nThere are several movable items associated with Kirribilli House and Garden. These include a wide variety of furniture, art and memorabilia predominantly lent and managed by the Australian Fund (see detailed identification, care and management set out in the catalogue by Australian Fund, The Australian Fund, 2022). Additional items found on site should be assessed and recorded by suitably qualified persons and conserved on site or protected in off-site storage.\n\n| Policy 35. Movable items | The existing management practice and collaboration with Australian Fund and PM&C should continueIf additional moveable items are found, they should be identified and assessed by a suitably qualified person and conserved on site, or protected in an off-site storage facilityMovable items should be assessed for suitability for incorporation in an Interpretation Plan for the site. |\n| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.19 Heritage interpretation\n\nThere is an opportunity for the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden to be promoted to the public by undertaking an Interpretation Strategy. The strategy should be prepared by a heritage consultant and appropriately funded. This strategy should include consideration of security and safety requirements whilst communicating the heritage significance of the site.\n\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | An Interpretation Strategy should be prepared for Kirribilli House and Garden by a suitably qualified heritage consultantThe Interpretation Strategy should consider privacy, safety, and security requirements of the siteConsider the use of wide range of media, digital, paper, physical (signage, fabric) and sensory elements (e.g., textured materials in the garden and soundscapes)Include associations with significant people for the house as well as the garden (include signage adjacent to significant plants).Consider displaying historic photographsIncorporate any oral histories (e.g., descendants of the Feez family, former Prime Ministers)Include Indigenous heritage values and consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal parties.If there is an opportunity, undertake an Indigenous Intangible Cultural Values study and to incorporate reference to Indigenous past in the garden through a cohesive approach.An Indigenous Interpretation Strategy may be prepared as a separate documentCreate a unified and consistent style, sympathetic to the heritage aesthetic of the site, for interpretation of the site e.g., style of fonts and colours for signs. |\n| ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.20 Signage and external lighting\n\nThere is limited signage on site that is in keeping with the residential character of the site. There is also a mixture of light fittings in the house and garden with majority of fittings originating from the 1957 modifications and some reproduced Victorian lamps.\n\nSignage and external lighting can add to the character of the site. Signage and lighting should not adversely affect the significant heritage fabric and overall character of the site. When installing signage, the fixings should be reversible and not damage significant fabric.\n\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | Should the opportunity, arise develop a complex-wide signage and external lighting plan for the site.Signage and lighting should be in harmony with the historic character of the site and compliant with current Australian health and safety standardsFree standing signage systems should be used for major directional signs, with smaller signs applied to selected areas with a minimum of fixingsSigns should not be attached to the brickwork walls of the buildingsIf the opportunity arises, a lighting designer or architect should be engaged to undertake a site wide study of existing lighting to the house and garden, and propose a lighting plan that is a contemporary design and sympathetic to the heritage values of the siteIncorporate sustainable lighting practices. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.8 Contributory elements\n\nContributory elements (tangible and intangible) to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden have been identified in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements. \nThese elements are essential to the significance of the place and should be conserved according to the following policies.\n\n| Policy 38 | |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (1) Curtilage | See policy 7.7.5. |\n| (2) Relationship to Admiralty House | Conserve and protect views to Admiralty House and key elements within its gardenRetain the existing access points at the western boundary. |\n| (3) Views and vistas to Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (4) Views and vistas from Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (5) Pre-European vestiges | Retain and protect features of the pre-European landscape including, plantings, rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs. |\n| (6) Entrance gates, stone walls, and fences | Retain and conserve stone walls and wrought iron gates.Consider replacing the side entry gate to an interpreted detail of the early gate from 1913 (Figure 5-11Figure 5‑6)Fencing to the northern boundary may be altered to interpret earlier detailsThe fencing along the boundary to Admiralty House may be altered to a more open style of fence to interpret the connection between the two sites. |\n\n \n\n| (7) Driveway, driveway loop and entrance forecourt | An entry precinct that is grand and in keeping with the Victorian themed garden style should be retainedPlant species should be sourced from available archival sources of the Victorian eraThe entry drive should not be increased in area for future useAn updated Landscape Management Plan should review the significance of the species of camellias to confirm their association with the work of Professor E G WaterhouseA Landscape Management Plan should seek to undertake further research and gain expert opinion are required to confirm appropriateness of the Jacaranda trees on the site. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (8) Upper eastern grassed banks and terraces | The steep grassed banks should be retained and existing view preserved. |\n| (9) Lower eastern lawn terrace and eastern walk | The steep grassed banks of the lower terrace should be retained as an open space permitting views to the harbour and views to the house from the harbourPlantings to the south should be consistent with the Victorian eraOpportunities for reinstating Indigenous vegetation should be investigated. |\n| (10) Northeast gardens and walks | The sandstone outcrops should be retained and not concealedThe meandering paths should be retainedPlantings should be appropriate to the Victorian era and should also address loss of privacy to the northern boundary from tree lossThe poorly executed sandstone paving on north-eastern and lower grounds should be reviewed. |\n| (11) Northeastern terrace | The stone wall and paving should be reconstructed with a rustic theme, providing a focus for the existing rock outcropCourses should follow the horizontal bias with no vertical elementsPlantings should be consistent with the Victorian era, promote Indigenous vegetation, provide privacy, and retain filtered views. |\n| (12) Clifftop garden | The wild character of the garden should be retained without impeding on viewsThe safety aspects of the garden should be reviewedIndigenous vegetation should be promoted. |\n| (13) Foreshore and cliffs | The foreshore and cliff line with sandstone face should be retainedIndigenous plantings should be promotedSafety and design of the access pathways that lead to the boat harbour and bathing pool below should be reviewed. |\n| (14) Harbourside ruins | The boat harbour, bathing pool, boatsheds and retaining walls should be retained and conservedAn archival record of existing structures should be undertakenFurther physical studies of this area should be undertakenExisting retaining walls should be stabilised |\n| (15) Southern lawn terrace and rockeries | The stone flagged areas, rockeries, and terraces should be retained and conservedThe steel pipe handrail should be upgraded to comply with current access codes. |\n| (16) Western garden including hedged lawn and kitchen garden | The hedged lawn and kitchen garden should be retained and conserved |\n| (17) Paths and stairs | Existing paths and stairs should be retainedA landscape masterplan should study existing paths and stairs and propose a plan considering hierarchy of paths, detailing of edging, consolidation, and cohesive palette of materialsrandom stone paving to lower areas should be removed and replaced with bitumenThe drainage of paths away from the building line should be ensured |\n| (18) Significant trees | All significant trees and plants identified in this HMP and Landscape Management Plan should be retained and protected.A program for succession of identified plantings should be undertaken, particularly to address loss of tree canopy and privacy along Kirribilli Avenue. |\n| (19) Victorian Rustic Gothic style features | The stylistic features of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture should be retained, protected and conserved. |\n| (20) North elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe entry porch in its current configuration should be retained. Steps may be altered but should remain symmetrical to the porchDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (21) East elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in its current configuration should be retained, including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (22) South elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in current configuration should be retained including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to nineteenth century wallsThe timber storeroom may be removed, and the original verandah may be reinstated. |\n| (23) West elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedRoom and gabled roof over the northwest corner of building should be retainedSingle storey parapet wing may be removed or alteredThe service wing may be removed or alteredThe awning entry may be removed or alteredDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (24) Roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods | The roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods should be retained and conservedIf required install, safety anchors on internal slopes. |\n| (25) Masonry walls | Masonry walls and associated elements should be retained and conservedRepairs and conservation work to masonry walls should follow traditional repair methodsDo not use cement render on pre-1950s wallsPaint finish should be retained. |\n| (26) Verandah | The verandah and associated elements should be retained and conservedDo not infill any part of the verandahStoreroom/infill to verandah may be retained or removedFuture replacement of roof should be corrugated copper. |\n| (27) Entry porch including front doors | The entry porch and doors should be retained and conservedThe entry steps may be altered but the symmetry and stone fabric should be retainedThe front doors may be relocated to its original location. The doorframe and fanlight should be retainedStone flagging to interior may be replaced with unglazed tessellated tile. |\n| (28) Bay window including parapet and flat roof | The bay window and its elements should be retained and conserved |\n| (29) French doors | The French doors and associated elements including hardware should be retained and conservedReinstatement of the earlier narrow doors to eastern elevation is not requiredSteel security doors have been designed sympathetically to the doors and should be retainedDo not modify early doors to include double glazing. |\n| (30) Windows | The early casement windows, Gothic windows (porch) and multi-paned double hung windows should be retained and conservedAssociated elements including hardware should be retainedDo not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (31) Shutters | The early shutters (pre-1957) should be retained and conservedShutters of later date may be removed or modified.Do not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (32) Post 1950s additions | Additions may be retained or demolishedIf removed, the original details of the walls should be reinstated. |\n| (33) Service wing | Service wing may be retained or demolished. |\n| (34) Entry hall including Entry lobby | The entry hall and lobby in its current configuration should be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (35) Drawing room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating original wall between roomsSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (36) Dining room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating the opening size between dining and drawing roomSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (37) Prime Minister’s study | Should be retained in its current configurationThe glass doors to the east may be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (38) Green room | Should be retained in its current configurationShelving to either side of fireplace may be altered or removed and former door in this area may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (39) Hallways and stairs | Should be retained in its current configurationThe narrow hall should not be reinstated at ground floorSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (40) Family room | Should be retained in its current configurationSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (41) Bedrooms | Should be retained in its current configurationFireplace may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved. |\n| (42) Bathrooms | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (43) Spaces in service wing | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (44) Internal joinery, including doors, architraves, and skirtings | All pre-1950s joinery should be retained and conserved in situ to reflect the different periods of developmentWhere joinery is polished, polish finish should be retained and not painted overConservation works should consider reinstating the polished/grained finish to early joinery. |\n| (45) Services | See 7.7.12 |\n| (46) Garage | The garage may be altered internally. |\n| (47) Guard house | The meandering paths should be retainedThe guard house may be altered or demolished. |\n| (48) Storeroom | The storeroom may be altered or demolished. |\n| (49) Moveable items | See 7.7.18 |\n\n## 7.9 New work\n\n### 7.9.1 Adaptive re-use\n\nKirribilli House and Garden was constructed as a residence in 1856 and used as a residence during the key period of significance Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920. The site has continued its residential function when it became the Official Sydney Residence of the Prime Minister in 1957, hence the current use is consistent with the historical significance of the site. The residential use is evidenced in the planning of the house and garden as well as its physical fabric.\n\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | The most compatible use for Kirribilli House and Garden is a residential useKirribilli House and Garden should be retained as an Official Sydney Establishment of the Prime Minister and its ownership continued by the CommonwealthBefore considering adaptive re-use an assessment should be made of the compatibility of new use to the site’s historical function, potential loss of associations with prime ministerial roles and potential impacts (physical and visual) on heritage significanceFuture adaptive reuse should also consider hierarchy of public and private use of parts of the site and where feasible allowing public access. |\n| ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.2 New development, additions and infills\n\nThe original house built in 1856 was located on the smoothed platform above the rock outcrop centred on the site. The house was extended to the west in the latter two phases. Minor infills and extension to the house have occurred also taken place during this time. Outbuildings were located as a garden structure on the central garden area, to the west of the site and harbourside structures to the eastern boundary. There is opportunity to restore the ruins of the harbourside structures. Modifications or replacement of the service wing from 1957 is possible. Elsewhere on the site, there is limited opportunity for development without potential impact to heritage significance. Any development of the laundry building which is owned by OOSG has potential to impact the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. There is additional opportunity for development if the site was consolidated with Admiralty House (investigated in Kirribilli House Master Plan Report (Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd, 1981). Opportunities should be considered through a new masterplan study.\n\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | There is minimal opportunity for new development, additions and infills at Kirribilli House and GardenUse of existing spaces should be maximised prior to considering alternatives to developAll other opportunities that have little or no impacts to heritage values should be exhausted prior to considering new developmentRestoration of the harbourside structures should be considered.There is opportunity to modify or replace the service wing from 1957New development should consider the existing architectural style, forms and masses and ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic and do not compete with the Rustic Victorian character of the placeNew work should adopt the principle of reversibility to mitigate potential impactsNew work should use high quality of materials |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is not a static house museum and it should continue to evolve with each incumbent as the requirements for its use change. Changes to the historical uses, however, should be carefully assessed for compatibility of spaces and only implemented once all other options have been investigated and discarded.\n\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | Change of use to spaces are permissibleAreas of low significance have high tolerance and flexibility for changesAreas of high significance have low tolerance and flexibility and compatible uses should be first considered before considering options. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.10 Conservation in accordance with significance\n\nMuch of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House is embodied in the physical fabric of the place. Section 5.4.1 of this HMP sets out the grading scale for significant elements ranging from those elements of exceptional significance down to those that are intrusive. It follows that conservation action should be related to an element’s relative level of significance. Grading of significant fabric in each element/building is included in 5.4.3 and guidelines for managing change are identified in Section 5.4.2.\n\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | Much of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House and Garden is embodied in the physical elements and fabric of the place. Conservation action should be related to the elements or fabric’s level of significanceAny repair, conservation or reconstruction works to significant elements or facades must be undertaken with appropriate direction by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, architect and/or relevant materials specialist/s or conservator and with reference to historical documentation. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n## 7.11 Conservation of Materials\n\n### 7.11.1 Traditional materials\n\nKirribilli House and Garden consists of several traditional materials including slate, lead, copper, sandstone, brick, cast iron and timber.\n\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | A heritage architect should be engaged to undertake works and provide advice on to traditional materialsWhen repairing or altering traditional materials, a qualified and experienced traditional trades contractor should be engaged to undertake the work or supervise the work. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.2 Reconstruction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has many details that are missing or have been undertaken in an inappropriate manner. When these works are proposed to be reconstructed, the work should be based on documentary evidence of an earlier state.\n\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | Reconstruction is appropriate only where an element is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the elementReconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection. |\n| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes\n\nWhen repainting, the choice of paint colours should be based on an understanding of original colours and finishes used – through documentary and analysis of physical evidence (e.g., paint scrapes). \nIf repainting is required, original colour schemes should be re-instated for significant elements. \nA colour palette and interior design advice was provided in the 2016 HMP and should be used to guide future works.\n\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | Refer to Kirribilli House – Colour Palette and Interior Design Heritage Advice, Appendix O. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods\n\nThere are areas of the site that have been inappropriately repaired or conserved. These include the cement mortar repairs to masonry and conservation works where details are exact replicas. \nWhen opportunity arises, undertake works to remedy areas. Works should be prioritised and only those items identified as intrusive should be modified.\n\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | When practical, previous inappropriate repair and conservation methods should be remedied with the use of traditional methods according to priority. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP\n\nThis HMP should be reviewed every five years and considered for full update every ten years or when large-scale changes are proposed that are not considered in this HMP. The implementation of the HMP should also be reviewed every five years.\n\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | This HMP should be reviewed every five years (or when large-scale changes are proposed that have not already been considered in this HMP)This HMP should be reviewed every ten years and considered for a full update.The implementation of the HMP should be reviewed every five years (assessing works priorities, if the HMP is actually implementing the policies and strategies, and the condition of the place and the condition of its listed Commonwealth Heritage values – see table below).These reviews should be documented as reports with findings and actions clearly documented, |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n```html\n

Commonwealth Heritage Values

Reporting and monitoring

Criterion A - Processes – Attributes: The fabric and form of the house

When reviews are undertaken on the effectiveness of the implementation of the HMP policies, these should be applied to the Commonwealth heritage values through a qualitative assessment of the retention of the attributes listed against each relevant criterion (A, B, D, E, G and H). The success in retaining these attributes and thus the associated values that reside in them should be documented as reports with clearly stated findings and actions.

Criterion B - Rarity – Attributes: The house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour

Criterion D - Characteristic values – Attributes: The building's form, its external styling and details, and its early and original fabric

Criterion E - Aesthetic characteristics – Attributes:

The architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour

Criterion G - Social value – Attributes: The house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days

Criterion H - Significant people – Attributes: The whole of the building, both internally and externally

\n```\n\n \n\n### 7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis\n\nA review of reports for the site has identified knowledge gaps. Opportunities should be sought for these to be addressed as part of future investigations and assessments.\n\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | Opportunities should be sought to fill the following knowledge gaps:The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysisAlthough there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be locatedDiscussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruinsDiscussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listedDemonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistasConfirmation of the position and detail of the original staircaseThe detail of the original front doorThe detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevationThe early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of StudyThe detail of the original verandahThe detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracketDetails of the original drawing room windowsThe early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and gratesThe detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbourDetails of original fencing and gates, |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n \n\n| Policy | Responsibility | Priority | Timing |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- |\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | PM&C to adopt and implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C to notify, review and consult | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | PM&C to engage appropriate experts | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | PM&C to induct | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | PM&C to manage | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 9:Saftey | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 10: Access for people with a disability | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | PM&C to plan and coordinate | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 13. Security | PM&C to provide | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 14 Security infrastructure | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 16. Setting | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 18. Significant views | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | PM&C to undertake | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 21-23. Grounds generally / House generally / Maintenance | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 24 Emergency works policy | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 26. General | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 30. Services | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | PM&C to engage appropriate specialists | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 33. Public access | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 35. Movable items | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | PM&C to develop | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 38. | PM&C to conserve and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-10 years |\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-5 years |\n\n## 7.12 Implementation plan\n\nThe following implementation plan should be utilised for the policies listed above.\n\n \n\n# 8.0 Maintenance Schedule\n\n## 8.1 Introduction\n\nRegular, on-going inspection and maintenance is vital to the longevity of heritage buildings and to preserve their heritage significance. The following section provides the required catch up maintenance, a cyclical inspection and maintenance schedule.\n\n## 8.2 Catch-up Maintenance\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been well maintained, resulting in a good overall condition. Conservation of the exterior stonework has been carried out within the last five years. A few catch-up maintenance items were noted. Cleaning of the exterior has been added to the maintenance schedule in Section 8.3.","sortOrder":149},{"sectionNumber":"7.6.1 Security and privacy","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.6.1 Security and privacy","content":"### 7.6.1 Security and privacy\n\nManagement of Kirribilli House and Garden requires a high level of security and privacy.\n\n| Policy 13. Security and privacy | Elements of this HMP will be made available to government departments and external stakeholders on a need-to-know basisSections of the Heritage Induction Training Manual shall be made available to relevant contractors working on the site (see Appendix P) |\n| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":150},{"sectionNumber":"7.6.2 Security Infrastructure","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.6.2 Security Infrastructure","content":"### 7.6.2 Security Infrastructure\n\nHome Affairs are responsible for the security infrastructure at Kirribilli House. The Australian Federal Police provide 24-hour physical security for the site. Extenuating circumstances may result in the disturbance of heritage fabric. The security of the property and the people within it will always outweigh any other requirements.\n\n| Policy 14. Security Infrastructure | Security requirements at Kirribilli House are fundamentally important for the safety and functionality of the house and those who work/live thereInterior security measures, such as distress buttons, are a high security priority. For security reasons they need to be placed in prominent, easily reached locations within the rooms, however whenever possible they should not be inserted into significant fabricWhile security is an essential operational requirement, any changes should be implemented in a way that minimises heritage impact where possible. |\n| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |","sortOrder":151},{"sectionNumber":"7.7","sectionType":"part","heading":"Site-wide policies","content":"# 7.0 Managing heritage values\n\n## 7.1 Objectives\n\nThis HMP sets out a structure to assist PM&C for the future management of Kirribilli House and Garden are to ensure the operational duties continue to be carried out, while protecting the identified heritage values and achieving EPBC Act compliance. For historic heritage, it is to conserve the heritage significance through retention of buildings, fabric and landscape elements of significance including the preservation of the historical layout.\n\n## 7.2 Opportunities and constraints\n\nOpportunities and constraints arising from the identified heritage significance of a place establish \na baseline from where other issues such as maintenance and owner requirements can be considered. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance and requirements under the CHL.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden displays a high degree of significance due to the following:\n\n As the Official Sydney residence of the Australian Prime Minister since 1957\n The site evidences the early land grants to prominent Sydney residents\n Association with early public campaign to protect harbourside development in the 1920s\n Association with Admiralty House and forming part of a continued landscape that is Kirribilli Point\n The site has rare qualities as a surviving Victorian Rustic Gothic residence in a harbour setting and includes the remains of one of the earliest bathing pools on Sydney Harbour\n The site has representative values for its Victorian Rustic Gothic style of house and garden and\n The site is important to the people of Australia and is associated with various prime ministers, dignitaries, and significant people in the community.\n\nOpportunities arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Maintain a high quality of care and management of the site\n Interpreting the heritage values of the site including the different phases of development\n Presenting a cohesive landscape of Kirribilli Point that includes both Kirribilli and Admiralty House\n Potential for development or rebuilding of areas that are poorly presented and placing unnecessary pressures on security and privacy of the site and\n Review and re-design of the garden to emphasise heritage significance and introduce other elements of significance of the site.\n\nConstraints arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Operational, security and privacy requirements from the use of the site as a place of residence of the Prime Minister and visits by dignitaries\n Physical constraints of the site for development and\n Maintenance requirements and upkeep of the site resulting from age, building materials, siting, and damp issues of the site.\n\n## 7.3 Planned Works\n\nThe following works are currently planned for this site:\n\n Repairs to the garden paving\n Seawall stabilisation\n\nAll works will be undertaken in accordance with Policy 7 of this HMP.\n\n## 7.4 Policies and guidelines\n\nThe role of the conservation policies in this HMP is to provide specific guidelines for the conservation, on-going care, development and use of Kirribilli House and Garden so that its cultural significance is appropriately maintained, enhanced, and interpreted. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance.\n\n## 7.5 Management Policies\n\n### 7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP\n\nWhilst Kirribilli House and Garden remains a Commonwealth property, this HMP must be reviewed at least once every five years in accordance with Section 341X (1) of the EPBC Act. The review should assess the content of the plan and determine its effectiveness in protecting the heritage values of the place and make recommendations for updating or re-writing the plan as required. The review is to be undertaken with assistance from a heritage specialist and be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and Regulations for the review of management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places. The review is to focus on amending responsibilities, include commentary on any works undertaken since the last HMP review, and consider any changes or planned changes of use.\n\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | The conservation policies set out in this plan should be adopted by PM&C and implementedRelevant policies should be cross referenced to other management documentsA copy of the HMP should be retained on siteThis HMP must be updated every five years by PM&C with the assistance of a heritage specialist to ensure it remains relevant to the use of Kirribilli House and Garden and to ensure statutory compliance is maintainedThis HMP should also be updated after any significant changes to the site have occurred. At a minimum, the review must:Assess whether the plan is consistent with the Commonwealth Heritage management principles in force at the timeAssess whether the plan is effective in protecting and conserving the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenMake recommendations for the improved protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenThe listed Commonwealth Heritage values will be monitored, reviewed and reported on annually as part of the PM&C Annual Reporting Cycle. This information will be provided to DCCEEW every three years, as outlined in the PM&C Heritage Strategy. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth asset on Commonwealth land within NSW, managed by PM&C. If the asset leaves Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), ongoing heritage protection would be required under S341ZE of the EPBC Act. An update and revision of this HMP would then be required to accurately consider and reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements.\n\nResponsibility for undertaking the review of the HMP should fall to the new owner and should be undertaken within six months of the sale, and/or prior to the undertaking of any changes to Kirribilli House and Garden. To ensure that this requirement is recognised by the new owner it should form part of the sale/transfer documents between PM&C and the new owner.\n\nUnder S341ZE of the EPBC Act, PM&C must notify the Minister of the proposed divestment and establish an appropriate mechanism to protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place during the sale/transfer process and after the property has left Commonwealth control (such as a covenant \nin the sale/transfer documents, or equivalent arrangements).\n\nA copy of the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment as NSW heritage legislation would apply in the absence of Commonwealth ownership. The heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden should therefore be nominated by PM&C for formal protection under the NSW heritage system in the event of divestment.\n\nConsultation with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment will be necessary at least 12 months prior to the property leaving Commonwealth ownership, to ensure the appropriate nominations are in place to provide ongoing heritage protection. PM&C should also consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and submit the consultation outcomes to Heritage NSW.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been assessed as having outstanding heritage values and thus potentially reaching the threshold for inclusion on the NHL. Along with inclusion on the NSW SHR, a NHL listing would provide an additional layer of protection of the heritage values of the site. It is recommended that the site should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL.\n\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C must notify the Minister responsible for heritage of the intention to divest or lease the site, in accordance with the timeframes specified under S341ZE of the EPBC ActThis HMP should be reviewed to reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements. The HMP should be updated within six months of a Change of Ownership or Lease agreementIf the site is to leave Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and EnvironmentConsultation should occur with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the consultation outcomes submitted to Heritage NSWKirribilli House and Garden should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL and NSW SHR. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades\n\nThis HMP was prepared using a range of expert advice. For successful long-term interpretation and implementation of this Plan, continuity of competent advice is important to avoid implications from \nill-advised decisions.\n\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | Persons with suitable expertise and experience in conservation projects should be engaged for the resolution of conservation issues, as well as for input into the design and administration of conservation work on the place. Expert persons may include heritage architects, heritage landscape architects, heritage consultants, traditional (stone/slate/plaster) material contractors and arborists. |\n| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.4 Training and resources\n\nOccupants, staff, managers and contractors should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. Contractors should be given a copy of the Heritage Induction Training Manual provided in Appendix P.\n\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | All personnel on site should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and GardenA copy of the Heritage Induction Training Materials should be provided to contractors undertaking works on site. |\n| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities\n\nOwnership and property management of Kirribilli House and Garden including heritage management and Capital Works is managed by PM&C HOST. Other stakeholder management roles and responsibilities are set out in Section 1.6.\n\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders should be familiar with the roles and responsibilities of each agency. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping\n\nWorks undertaken to modify elements of Kirribilli House and Garden need to be approved by PM&C. Works may include:\n\n- determining if EPBC Act referral is necessary\n- determining if a HIA is required for proposed works\n- design works referencing the HMP\n- engaging a specialist to provide advice and undertake the submission of the draft HIA\n- undertaking EPBC Act self-assessment\n- undertaking consultation with DCCEEW\n- undertaking the attainment of approvals\n- commencement of works\n- documentation of the works.\n\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | All works that are the responsibility of PM&C shall be in accordance with the PM&C approval process included in HOW TO: Procurement Address Heritage Considerations (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023)Implementation of policies and works should be recorded by PM&C and records shall be maintained in the ShareHub systemDetails of day to day property maintenance will be kept by JLL with regular reports provided to PM&C filing on its ShareHub system. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.7 Legislative approvals process\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth property and hence must be managed in accordance with Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations (see Table 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist) and the policies in this HMP. If proposed works are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, approval must be sought through the EPBC Act referral process. The first step in assessing the impact of any proposed works is to prepare a self-assessment, in the format of a Heritage Impact Assessment. This should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist. If the self-assessment finds the action will or might have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage listed values, the action will need to be referred to the Minister for Environment and Water in accordance with Sections 26 and 29 of the EPBC Act. Advice can be sought from DCCEEW on this process and any potential actions. Any proposed works should consider alternatives to minimise impacts to heritage values.\n\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | Kirribilli House and Garden must be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles set out in Schedule 7B of the EPBC RegulationsConsultation should be undertaken early on EPBC Act referrals with DCCEEW heritageApproval should be sought through the EPBC referral processConsideration should be given to alternatives to minimise heritage impacts. |\n| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance\n\nIf compliance with the NCC and DDA to meet health, safety and energy efficiency requirements are likely to have a substantial impact on significant fabric or heritage values. Alternative engineered solutions that minimise impacts should be considered and promoted.\n\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | Compliance with the NCC or DDA should focus on responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect the significance. An alternative engineered solution may need to be sought if deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot be met. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to code compliance should be avoided. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.9 Safety\n\nKirribilli House is required to meet current safety standards as both a workplace and as a building. Measures should be taken to balance the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place with these safety obligations. All buildings and workplaces are required to meet various safety codes, including Kirribilli House. As a workplace, PM&C, with staff at the property, are required to ensure a safe work environment at all times and they must ensure that all incumbents and their families, as well as staff and visitors to the property are aware of any safety risks.\n\n| Policy 9. Safety | PM&C should aim to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code Australia (BCA) when they apply. Any strategies or solutions to make Kirribilli House comply with the BCA requirements should balance the cultural significance of the place with the objectives of the BCA. If conflict occurs, external heritage and architectural advice may be requiredWorks that improve the health and safety of the property are necessary, however they should be planned and designed ina sympathetic manner, so they do not negatively impact the Commonwealth Heritage values of the placeShould there be a conflict between the provision of safety measures and the protection of heritage fabric, safety should be the overriding factor which determines the measures necessaryAlternative solutions and compromises should be pursued wherever possible so that a solution is designed which meets both safety and heritage considerationsIt should be noted however, that whilst the BCA does not affect these items retrospectively, WH&S compliance is a current legislative obligationAn asbestos management plan should be implemented for any remaining asbestos. |\n| ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability\n\nAccess for people with a disability is currently inadequate. Although the DDA is not prescriptive, \nit would be best practice for Kirribilli House to have a policy for providing dignified and easy access. The DDA makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their disability. It is not specifically about buildings, however it has an effect on buildings in which the design and construction prevents access by people with a disability; as the owners of those buildings can be deemed to be discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.\n\n| Policy 10. Access for people with a disability | The following procedure should be applied when considering changes to heritage buildingsReview the significance of the place and identify the elements of greatest significanceUndertake an Access Audit to determine existing and required levels of accessibility; noting that some areas are exempt under the NCCEvaluate access options within a Commonwealth Heritage context. This process includes consultation with authorities and approval of the proposed actionPrepare the access policy or action planImplement the necessary action. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.11 Planning and coordination\n\nProposing ad-hoc changes can have an adverse impact on the significant values of the place. \nOver time, when these ad-hoc measures are undertaken independently, without coordination, \nplanning or expert advice, they can result in compounding adverse impact on the values of the place.\n\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | A coordinated and planned approach is necessary when proposing changes to Kirribilli House and GardenThe proposed activity should be reviewed within a holistic management framework to avoid adverse impacts resulting fromad-hoc measures. |\n| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation\n\nEarly consultation with stakeholders is required to comply with the EPBC Regulations when managing heritage places. The EPBC Act requires public notification of a HMP. This consultation process may be undertaken once a final HMP is available. In accordance with the referral assessment process under the EPBC Act, any proposed action that will impact on the heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden must also be notified for public comment.\n\nWhilst works proposed to Kirribilli House do not need to comply with local planning requirements, \nif significant works are proposed, it is recommended that North Sydney Council be informed.\n\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | Relevant stakeholder consultation should be undertaken early as part of managing the heritage place, allowing sufficient time for input in accordance with the EPBC ActThe HMP must be available for public notificationAny proposed action that impacts the heritage values of Kirribilli House must be notified for public commentIf substantial works are proposed, North Sydney Council should be informed as a good neighbour policy. |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\nPlease note that as per Section 1.8.1, public notification and exhibition of the draft HMP were carried out in 2023, prior to the finalisation of this document.\n\n \n\n## 7.6 Security\n\n### 7.6.1 Security and privacy\n\nManagement of Kirribilli House and Garden requires a high level of security and privacy.\n\n| Policy 13. Security and privacy | Elements of this HMP will be made available to government departments and external stakeholders on a need-to-know basisSections of the Heritage Induction Training Manual shall be made available to relevant contractors working on the site (see Appendix P) |\n| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.6.2 Security Infrastructure\n\nHome Affairs are responsible for the security infrastructure at Kirribilli House. The Australian Federal Police provide 24-hour physical security for the site. Extenuating circumstances may result in the disturbance of heritage fabric. The security of the property and the people within it will always outweigh any other requirements.\n\n| Policy 14. Security Infrastructure | Security requirements at Kirribilli House are fundamentally important for the safety and functionality of the house and those who work/live thereInterior security measures, such as distress buttons, are a high security priority. For security reasons they need to be placed in prominent, easily reached locations within the rooms, however whenever possible they should not be inserted into significant fabricWhile security is an essential operational requirement, any changes should be implemented in a way that minimises heritage impact where possible. |\n| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n## 7.7 Site-wide policies\n\n### 7.7.1 Conservation principles\n\nThe Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, known as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013), \nis 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. \nThere are seven principles that guide the care of heritage places:\n\n1\\. The place itself is important\n\n2\\. Understand the significance of the place\n\n3\\. Understand the fabric\n\n4\\. Significance should guide decisions\n\n5\\. Do as much as necessary, as little as possible\n\n6\\. Keep records\n\n7\\. Do everything in a logical order.\n\nThe use of the terms, conservation, preservation, reconstruction, adaptation, fabric, maintenance, repair, and compatible use in this report are defined in The Burra Charter.\n\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | Future work on the complex should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and its GuidelinesThe Commonwealth heritage values of the place should be the basis for all future planning and development. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.2 Setting\n\nThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting is a key contributory element to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden and its landmark qualities. The site is part of a continued landscape that includes Admiralty House on Kirribilli Point. Having met CHL Criterion B, D and E that relates to the setting of the place, it is crucial that the policy below be adopted to protect and maintain the CHL values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 16. Setting | The landmark qualities of Kirribilli House and Garden should be retained and protectedThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting should be retained, protected and promoted. This includes such key elements as the Victorian picturesque qualities (sweeping lawn, meandering paths, dramatic views and wild character), topography, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, harbour views and access to waterwayRetain and protect the continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. |\n| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.3 Streetscape\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to Kirribilli Conservation Area, which has been characterised by a mix of small, medium and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and contemporary residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | Kirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to the Kirribilli Conservation Area, hence contributory elements, including Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture, principal elevations, established garden, integration to topography and homogeneous scale, should all be retained and protected. |\n| ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.4 Significant views\n\nKirribilli House within Kirribilli Point forms part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape which is appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from Sydney Opera House, Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point and distant views from Bradley’s Head.\n\nThere is a harmonious relationship between the house, garden and the wider landscape which is the harbour setting. The site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden which include panoramas, framed and filtered views. This contributes to the picturesque setting and is part of the early planning of the site that evidence the key period of significance. Significant views identified have been included in Section 3.2.1 and 3.6 and are defined in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.\n\nFigure 7‑2.\n\n| Policy 18. Significant views | Significant views to and from Kirribilli House and Garden should be maintained and protectedThese include but are not limited to those identified in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.Figure 7‑2. |\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of the harbour near Kirribilli House outlining the significant views](image.178.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑1: Significant views to Kirribilli House from various vantage points of Sydney Harbour (maps.six.nsw.gov.au\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of Kirribilli House grounds highlighting the significant views seen from the property](image.179.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑2: Significant views from Kirribilli House and Garden (maps.six.nsw.gov.au)\n\n### 7.7.5 Heritage curtilage\n\nKirribilli House retains its original physical curtilage which is defined by the existing site boundary. \nThe site has maintained the early subdivision from Admiralty House estate and sold in 1854 to \nAdolph Feez who built the house in 1856. The earliest access to the site is likely to have been from the harbour and the earliest plans included boat access on the eastern boundary. The earliest plans also show access from Kirribilli Avenue.\n\nA visual curtilage can be extended to include vistas from the harbour and beyond from various vantage points.\n\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | The physical curtilage defined by the existing site boundary including access to the foreshore and Kirribilli Avenue should be retained and protectedA visual curtilage that includes vantage points of Kirribilli House and Garden from the harbourside should be retained protected. |\n| ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.6 Masterplans\n\nKirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House are major elements of Kirribilli Point that form part of the continuous Sydney Harbour landscape. There are both built and natural elements from both sites that are historically significant which should be preserved and promoted. Developing a masterplan will assist in identifying areas for future development, planning and maintenance of the site and minimise any detrimental effects from ad-hoc activities.\n\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | When opportunity presents, undertake one masterplan for Kirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House to guide future works. Include a study of the historical development of the site architectural style, massing, geometry/axis, vistas, and circulation (vehicular/pedestrian) studies. The plan should include a review of existing infrastructure/services and develop a site wide methodology for implementing new work. The plan should identify areas of future development including scale, height, massing and materials for potential future development. The masterplan should include a landscape masterplan that incorporates both sites as one landscape element of Kirribilli PointWhen opportunity presents, provide a detailed and updated version of the current Landscape Management Plan for Kirribilli House(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) to include the heritage significance of areas of the garden, identify specific historic elements relating to significance, consolidate information fromGeoff Britton’s landscape assessment (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H) and the AECOM Tree Survey, 2023Using the above information, compile a detailed landscape design for the garden with clear heritage and design principles for each garden areaThe landscape masterplan/updated Landscape Management Plan should study water drainage and succession planting to re-establish the lost tree canopies. It should also identify plant species on site that have high water consumption and propose alternative sub-species (whilst retaining the heritage values) that are more resilient. It should also consider reducing the ongoing erosion of the sandstone cliffA qualified heritage architect, heritage landscape architect and relevant service consultants should be engaged to undertake this workThis HMP should be updated in the next review to include findings from the masterplan and the updated Landscape Management Plan. |\n| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.7 Grounds generally\n\nThe garden at Kirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Vestiges of the pre-European landscape, Phase 1 –19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the grounds generally.\n\n| Policy 21. Grounds generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:- Vestiges of the pre-European landscape evidenced in the indigenous vegetation, rock outcrops, and sandstone cliffs, reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline- Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of thePeople-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque qualities, sweeping lawn, meandering stone paths, terracing, dry stone walling, fencing, dramatic views(panoramic, framed and filtered) and floristic (leaf form, colour, and texture).- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the plantings associated with significant people- Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the instruction of terracing, steps, trees, and plants (exotic and native)Retain a high quality of garden maintenance by engaging trade professionals with proven experience in horticulture, garden maintenance and heritage gardensEngage arborists as required to manage the health and safety of older treesPrior to removal and pruning of trees consider impacts to significant views (panoramas, framed and filtered)Do not introduce new structures in the garden except for temporary structures such as marquees and climbing framesDo not introduce new garden beds or new species of plants to the site unless implemented by a landscape masterplan or management planKeep a record of plants that have been part of memorials, functions, planted or gifted by dignitariesBuilt memorials should be avoided in the garden to retain the Victorian style and residential significance of the place. Australian artwork/sculptures may be incorporated if they are sympathetic to the significance of the placeOutdoor furniture, fixtures and fittings should be sympathetic of the heritage values of the place. Retain cast iron urns and sundialsRetain and repair as necessary the boundary fences to the sitePrior to implementing the Landscape Management Plan(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) for detailed works to hard and soft landscaping, resolve the inconsistencies of heritage landscape principles from Geoff Britton’s assessments updated information from AECOM’s Tree Survey 2023 through a landscape masterplan/detailed management plan or landscape design. |\n| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.8 House generally\n\nKirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 \n(Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the house generally.\n\n| Policy 22. House generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque setting, modest scale, irregular massing, steeply pitched gabled roofs with highly decorated bargeboards, prominent gable, gabled dormer, slate roof, textured masonry walling, bay windows, timber verandah and tall medieval looking chimneys, fireplaces, timber joinery- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the single storey addition (wet), bay window replacements to double hung window, gabled roof, and room to first floor, hallway widened, addition of bathrooms, garagePhase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the service wing, single storey additions to either side of porch, replacement of shutters, verandah infill for storeroom, timber valence reconstruction, security screens, eastern gable windows, main stair reconstruction, and conservation worksConserve and promote the relationship of the house to the garden such as verandahs and garden elementsRetain and protect the internal arrangement of spaces, inter-relationships of rooms and volumes of spacesRetain and conserve the hierarchy of public and private spacesThe house may be altered to suit the function as an Official Prime Minister’s Residence whilst respecting the heritage values of the placeNew work should not replicate previous styles but be of a contemporary style and sympathetic to the heritage values of the placeReconstruction works should be identifiable through subtle variation in detail and should be dated. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.9 Maintenance and repair\n\nSystematic maintenance will conserve significant fabric longer for the ultimate benefit of future generations. A site wide maintenance plan is provided in Section 8.0.\n\n| Policy 23. Maintenance | Implement the General Maintenance Plan included in this HMP in accordance with the policies contained in this HMPThe maintenance plan should be adopted by JLL under their contractual obligationsThe maintenance plan should be integrated into the PM&C asset maintenance processes. A Heritage Asset works/maintenance record should also be prepared and maintained for each activityPrior to undertaking any maintenance works, confirmed that the activity proposed is maintenance and complies with the policies an in this HMP. This should be confirmed by PM&CA dedicated budget should be implemented to guide on-going maintenance work on the significant elements identified in this HMPAdequate funding arrangements for maintenance and urgent repairs identified in this HMP should be put in placeIncrease rate of maintenance following inclement weather such as high winds and storms. Inspect all weatherproofing elements of the buildingsEnsure all contractors are made aware of the heritage values of the place by providing the Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P) to all contractors on site.Undertake a structural condition assessment of the site every five years by a qualified structural engineer. |\n| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.10 Emergency Works\n\nEmergency works should always be undertaken as a priority, wherever possible they should seek to be completely reversible. Emergency works (such as rectifying storm damage, repairing water leaks or attending electrical malfunctions) are a necessary aspect of managing the maintenance, safety and condition of Kirribilli House. By their very nature, they often have to be undertaken quickly with little planning. If works occur (due to safety or security reasons) that are not sympathetic, such work should be ‘undone’ as soon as practicable.\n\n| Policy 24. Emergency Works | Emergency works must always be undertaken as quickly as possible.Any emergency works should be recorded by PM&C, with the issue, condition prior to repairs and condition after repairs (including photographs) recorded as a minimum.PM&C, as the agency responsible for contractors carrying out emergency works to the fixed building elements, should be notified as soon as possible to inspect the temporary repairs and decide on a more permanent solution.All emergency works should be reversible whenever possible. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience\n\nSustainable and resilient methods are required to manage the adverse effects of climate change. The skilled craftsmanship and composition of old materials result in heritage buildings that are durable. The re-use of existing buildings and fabric reduces the embodied energy required for new development. Hence, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings should be considered as a first measure before new development is considered. An energy audit/thermal assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden will identify areas energy expenditure.\n\nThe Australian Public Service (APS) must comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy. APS Net Zero will be achieved by actively reducing emissions from APS operations as well as through offsets. This initiative will also encourage transparency by requiring Commonwealth entities to publicly report on their emissions, whilst supporting the uplift of climate capability across the APS.\n\nExtreme weather patterns in the future mean that there will be periods of extreme drought and wet weather as well as erratic events and increased climate induced disasters. Environmental factors specific to Kirribilli House and Garden in the future include:\n\n- Increase in ambient humidity levels and condensation within buildings leading to mould and damp\n- Dry weather patterns creating shrinking of fabric and cracks to structure\n- Intense rainfalls and storms causing inefficient water drainage from buildings and areas of the garden, damage to property\n- Long periods of rain\n- The existing rising damp conditions to worsen.\n\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience(a) Assessments/audits | Comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy.Should the opportunity arise, undertake the following assessments/audits:- Undertake an initial and periodic energy, water and thermal comfort assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden to identify areas of deficiencies, ideally over a year (to account for season)- Assess the existing ventilation in buildings and implement methods of improvement to minimise humidity in buildings e.g., sub floor ventilation- Assess rain and surface water runoff across the whole site and in buildings. This may include installing sensors to measure ground moisture. Implement improvements especially during torrential rainfall events- Assess the viability of measures to reduce water and energy consumption in the garden (additional rainwater tanks, automatic watering, solar powered garden lights, drought tolerant plants and grasses). |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (b) Implementation | Implement low impact measures sympathetic to heritage values such as upgrades to fittings and fixtures (e.g., light fittings, water closets, taps) and services (air conditioning units, gas fireplaces)Increase the rate of maintenance to existing buildings during periods of extreme weather eventsPromote adaptive reuse of buildings. Demonstrate and exhaust all other measures to ensure existing buildings are used efficiently prior to constructing new buildings and structuresSolar panels should be avoided on the main house structure to avoid impact on significant views of the house. Solar panels may be installed on the laundry building if an HIA has determined that physical and visual impacts are minimal. The works will require permission from OOSGGNew work/developments should incorporate sustainable design and construction methodsUndertake any catch-up maintenance activities. Ensure that cyclical maintenance and emergency maintenance are activated immediately. |\n| (c) Management plans | Develop a Sustainability Action Plan for the site and include all sustainability measures. Include a risk register and identify risks to heritage elements including loss of heritage significant plant species, loss of lawns, property damage from high winds, erosion impact to garden, risk to heritage fabric from damage, increase in pests and diseases in garden. Include measures to educate staff, contractors on creating an awareness of sustainability issues.Develop and implement a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the site that identifies potential risks to the site and its heritage values to prepare Kirribilli House and Garden for future events. This plan should identify elements of the site that maybe sacrificial losses. |\n\n### 7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management\n\nIt is recognised that Kirribilli House and Garden is located within a larger cultural landscape of high social, cultural, and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples and will apply a precautionary approach to the management of heritage values.\n\n| Policy 26. General | The overarching aim for the management of the Indigenous heritage values should be done in partnership with Indigenous stakeholders.Consider the preparation of an interpretation strategy covering intangible Indigenous heritage values in the context of the broader intangible cultural landscape. This should be undertaken with Indigenous consultation.Indigenous stakeholders should be consulted regarding any potential impacts if any Indigenous heritage values are identified in relation to Kirribilli House and Garden. Consultation, in all instances, should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Ask First Guidelines.Should a plan be formulated for the management of the garden, there may be an opportunity for consideration to be given to Indigenous plantings to be added to the existing landscape, to allow for interpretation of the history of the location. Such a garden plan should be guided by the findings of the interpretation strategy and the consultation outcomes of the intangible cultural landscape values. |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nPrior to commencement of any new development activities/works within Kirribilli House and Garden, all relevant site personnel and contractors should be made aware of Indigenous heritage values. The discovery of unexpected Indigenous heritage should trigger ”Stop Works” as detailed in Policy 27.\n\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | Unexpected Indigenous Heritage Finds Procedure (excluding human skeletal remains)1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the artefact/site must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing).2. Notification - The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management about the discovery and seek advice.3. Impact Assessment - If required, undertake an assessment for the proposed activity/works in accordance with relevant heritage guidelines.4. Impact Mitigation - Implement management actions detailed in the assessment.5. Reporting - Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the new site and any implemented management actions.Unexpected Human Skeletal Remains Procedure - For any confirmed or suspected human skeletal remains, the following procedure should be followed:1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the remains must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing). The remains must not be left unattended.2. Notification: The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management of the discovery. They, in turn, must notify the Coroner’s Office and the Military Police, who will notify appropriate local authorities. If it is confirmed by these authorities that the remains are Indigenous Ancestral Remains, they should, as soon as practicable, report the existence of the remains to Indigenous stakeholders and relevant State-based heritage authorities.3. Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Management should consult with Indigenous stakeholders and an appropriately experienced and qualified heritage consultant. In general, the first management option should be avoidance of the location. If this is not possible, then relocation of the remains to a designated keeping place, or reburial at a location near to the original (but within an area that will not be impacted) should be undertaken. The wishes of the Indigenous stakeholders should guide these actions. The excavation and handling of any Indigenous skeletal remains should follow best practice scientific guidelines (e.g., NSW Heritage Office, 1998).4. GEMS Update:- Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the remains and implemented management actions. |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nConsider the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process, acknowledging security and safety constraints.\n\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | Kirribilli House and Garden is an active, high security area with access needing to be arranged in advance through appropriate personnel, with all visitors subject to security clearance and induction processes. Existing security and induction procedures notwithstanding, should Indigenous values be identified in the future, the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process should then be developed, which could potentially provide approval for on-site cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies. In general, should any interested Indigenous community members wish to enter for cultural reasons, they should contact the appropriate management contact who should facilitate the visit. |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nIndigenous stakeholders should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any public disclosures pertaining to the Indigenous heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | The investigation of intangible Indigenous cultural heritage values, and in the event that finds occur during future works, may result in the identification of Indigenous values relating to Kirribilli House and Garden. Should information regarding such Indigenous heritage values be proposed for release into the public domain, Indigenous stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on any disclosures prior to their release. All comments received should be considered and inform the final disseminated disclosure. |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.13 Services\n\nThe insertion of any new services should be carefully considered and consider the original structure and fabric of the heritage buildings to minimise impact.\n\n| Policy 30. Services | Services should be minimised in their extent and carefully planned to minimise damage to significant fabricNew, replacement and upgraded services should use existing conduits and ducts wherever possibleCeiling-mounted fittings, such as detectors and light fittings with minimal fixings are recommendedSurface-mounted vertical risers are permitted, provided their style and finish is compatible with the cultural significance of the space through which they pass. Wherever possible, vertical risers should be in minor spaces of least cultural significanceLight fittings and electrical accessories (switch plates, GPOs) should not be period reproductions but discrete modern fixturesAir-conditioning units should be discreet in location and appearance. Any associated works should be positioned to avoid damage to significant fabricExternal air-conditioning units should be concealed from view, not located on the front façade of the building, and positioned to avoid damage to significant external fabric. |\n| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring\n\nAreas of high archaeological potential have been identified at the subject site. If excavation is proposed in these areas, further investigation by a suitably qualified archaeologist would be required prior to commencement of works.\n\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | Any excavation in areas of high archaeological potential should be carried out under archaeological supervision by a qualified archaeologistIf underfloor deposits are planned to be removed, engage an archaeologist to remove and assess to determine the presence of any artefactsIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, implement an unexpected finds procedure must be followed (see Figure 4‑27). |\n| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.15 Carparking and circulation\n\nThe site has limited potential for incorporating carparking and vehicular access without impacting on the garden setting of the site. The driveway loop originates from the Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 \n(Official Residence of the Prime Minister) and is graded as an item of moderate significance, \nhence may be modified for future requirements.\n\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | An increase to the number of carparking spaces currently provided is not recommended i.e., spaces for permanent garaged vehicles and informal parking of cars on drivewayThe driveway loop may be modified for future carparking and vehicular access but must have little to no impact on the garden setting. |\n| ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.16 Public access\n\nThere is limited public access due to security and privacy reasons. However, the site holds many functions where large number of people can attend the site at any one time. Open days of the house and garden are also held. It is important that the heritage significance of the site is communicated, and significant fabric is protected during these times by implementing a Visitor Management Strategy.\n\n| Policy 33. Public access | Undertake and implement a Visitor Management Strategy for the site.Public open days should occur every year however the level at which the property is open to the public should be decided in conjunction with the incumbentsAt a minimum the grounds should be open for inspection during open daysCare should be taken to protect artworks and furniture during open daysInterpretative materials should be available on the day |\n| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.17 Archival recording\n\nAn archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved for removal should be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage specialist in accordance with the Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, \nrevised 2006) guideline. The record should aim to capture the item prior to, during and after the proposed works. A copy of the archival record be provided to the local council and the NLA.\n\nCurrently there are several sites that hold vast amount of historical information relating to the site including, State Records, NLA, State Library of NSW, Stanton Library and PM&C. This information should be consolidated, and a central repository of information should be established.\n\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | Undertake an archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved to be demolished. The works should comply with Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, revised 2006) guidelineProvide a copy of the archival record to PM&C, council and NLA(with redacted information on security)Establish a central repository of information of historical data. |\n| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.18 Movable items\n\nThere are several movable items associated with Kirribilli House and Garden. These include a wide variety of furniture, art and memorabilia predominantly lent and managed by the Australian Fund (see detailed identification, care and management set out in the catalogue by Australian Fund, The Australian Fund, 2022). Additional items found on site should be assessed and recorded by suitably qualified persons and conserved on site or protected in off-site storage.\n\n| Policy 35. Movable items | The existing management practice and collaboration with Australian Fund and PM&C should continueIf additional moveable items are found, they should be identified and assessed by a suitably qualified person and conserved on site, or protected in an off-site storage facilityMovable items should be assessed for suitability for incorporation in an Interpretation Plan for the site. |\n| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.19 Heritage interpretation\n\nThere is an opportunity for the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden to be promoted to the public by undertaking an Interpretation Strategy. The strategy should be prepared by a heritage consultant and appropriately funded. This strategy should include consideration of security and safety requirements whilst communicating the heritage significance of the site.\n\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | An Interpretation Strategy should be prepared for Kirribilli House and Garden by a suitably qualified heritage consultantThe Interpretation Strategy should consider privacy, safety, and security requirements of the siteConsider the use of wide range of media, digital, paper, physical (signage, fabric) and sensory elements (e.g., textured materials in the garden and soundscapes)Include associations with significant people for the house as well as the garden (include signage adjacent to significant plants).Consider displaying historic photographsIncorporate any oral histories (e.g., descendants of the Feez family, former Prime Ministers)Include Indigenous heritage values and consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal parties.If there is an opportunity, undertake an Indigenous Intangible Cultural Values study and to incorporate reference to Indigenous past in the garden through a cohesive approach.An Indigenous Interpretation Strategy may be prepared as a separate documentCreate a unified and consistent style, sympathetic to the heritage aesthetic of the site, for interpretation of the site e.g., style of fonts and colours for signs. |\n| ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.20 Signage and external lighting\n\nThere is limited signage on site that is in keeping with the residential character of the site. There is also a mixture of light fittings in the house and garden with majority of fittings originating from the 1957 modifications and some reproduced Victorian lamps.\n\nSignage and external lighting can add to the character of the site. Signage and lighting should not adversely affect the significant heritage fabric and overall character of the site. When installing signage, the fixings should be reversible and not damage significant fabric.\n\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | Should the opportunity, arise develop a complex-wide signage and external lighting plan for the site.Signage and lighting should be in harmony with the historic character of the site and compliant with current Australian health and safety standardsFree standing signage systems should be used for major directional signs, with smaller signs applied to selected areas with a minimum of fixingsSigns should not be attached to the brickwork walls of the buildingsIf the opportunity arises, a lighting designer or architect should be engaged to undertake a site wide study of existing lighting to the house and garden, and propose a lighting plan that is a contemporary design and sympathetic to the heritage values of the siteIncorporate sustainable lighting practices. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.8 Contributory elements\n\nContributory elements (tangible and intangible) to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden have been identified in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements. \nThese elements are essential to the significance of the place and should be conserved according to the following policies.\n\n| Policy 38 | |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (1) Curtilage | See policy 7.7.5. |\n| (2) Relationship to Admiralty House | Conserve and protect views to Admiralty House and key elements within its gardenRetain the existing access points at the western boundary. |\n| (3) Views and vistas to Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (4) Views and vistas from Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (5) Pre-European vestiges | Retain and protect features of the pre-European landscape including, plantings, rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs. |\n| (6) Entrance gates, stone walls, and fences | Retain and conserve stone walls and wrought iron gates.Consider replacing the side entry gate to an interpreted detail of the early gate from 1913 (Figure 5-11Figure 5‑6)Fencing to the northern boundary may be altered to interpret earlier detailsThe fencing along the boundary to Admiralty House may be altered to a more open style of fence to interpret the connection between the two sites. |\n\n \n\n| (7) Driveway, driveway loop and entrance forecourt | An entry precinct that is grand and in keeping with the Victorian themed garden style should be retainedPlant species should be sourced from available archival sources of the Victorian eraThe entry drive should not be increased in area for future useAn updated Landscape Management Plan should review the significance of the species of camellias to confirm their association with the work of Professor E G WaterhouseA Landscape Management Plan should seek to undertake further research and gain expert opinion are required to confirm appropriateness of the Jacaranda trees on the site. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (8) Upper eastern grassed banks and terraces | The steep grassed banks should be retained and existing view preserved. |\n| (9) Lower eastern lawn terrace and eastern walk | The steep grassed banks of the lower terrace should be retained as an open space permitting views to the harbour and views to the house from the harbourPlantings to the south should be consistent with the Victorian eraOpportunities for reinstating Indigenous vegetation should be investigated. |\n| (10) Northeast gardens and walks | The sandstone outcrops should be retained and not concealedThe meandering paths should be retainedPlantings should be appropriate to the Victorian era and should also address loss of privacy to the northern boundary from tree lossThe poorly executed sandstone paving on north-eastern and lower grounds should be reviewed. |\n| (11) Northeastern terrace | The stone wall and paving should be reconstructed with a rustic theme, providing a focus for the existing rock outcropCourses should follow the horizontal bias with no vertical elementsPlantings should be consistent with the Victorian era, promote Indigenous vegetation, provide privacy, and retain filtered views. |\n| (12) Clifftop garden | The wild character of the garden should be retained without impeding on viewsThe safety aspects of the garden should be reviewedIndigenous vegetation should be promoted. |\n| (13) Foreshore and cliffs | The foreshore and cliff line with sandstone face should be retainedIndigenous plantings should be promotedSafety and design of the access pathways that lead to the boat harbour and bathing pool below should be reviewed. |\n| (14) Harbourside ruins | The boat harbour, bathing pool, boatsheds and retaining walls should be retained and conservedAn archival record of existing structures should be undertakenFurther physical studies of this area should be undertakenExisting retaining walls should be stabilised |\n| (15) Southern lawn terrace and rockeries | The stone flagged areas, rockeries, and terraces should be retained and conservedThe steel pipe handrail should be upgraded to comply with current access codes. |\n| (16) Western garden including hedged lawn and kitchen garden | The hedged lawn and kitchen garden should be retained and conserved |\n| (17) Paths and stairs | Existing paths and stairs should be retainedA landscape masterplan should study existing paths and stairs and propose a plan considering hierarchy of paths, detailing of edging, consolidation, and cohesive palette of materialsrandom stone paving to lower areas should be removed and replaced with bitumenThe drainage of paths away from the building line should be ensured |\n| (18) Significant trees | All significant trees and plants identified in this HMP and Landscape Management Plan should be retained and protected.A program for succession of identified plantings should be undertaken, particularly to address loss of tree canopy and privacy along Kirribilli Avenue. |\n| (19) Victorian Rustic Gothic style features | The stylistic features of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture should be retained, protected and conserved. |\n| (20) North elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe entry porch in its current configuration should be retained. Steps may be altered but should remain symmetrical to the porchDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (21) East elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in its current configuration should be retained, including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (22) South elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in current configuration should be retained including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to nineteenth century wallsThe timber storeroom may be removed, and the original verandah may be reinstated. |\n| (23) West elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedRoom and gabled roof over the northwest corner of building should be retainedSingle storey parapet wing may be removed or alteredThe service wing may be removed or alteredThe awning entry may be removed or alteredDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (24) Roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods | The roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods should be retained and conservedIf required install, safety anchors on internal slopes. |\n| (25) Masonry walls | Masonry walls and associated elements should be retained and conservedRepairs and conservation work to masonry walls should follow traditional repair methodsDo not use cement render on pre-1950s wallsPaint finish should be retained. |\n| (26) Verandah | The verandah and associated elements should be retained and conservedDo not infill any part of the verandahStoreroom/infill to verandah may be retained or removedFuture replacement of roof should be corrugated copper. |\n| (27) Entry porch including front doors | The entry porch and doors should be retained and conservedThe entry steps may be altered but the symmetry and stone fabric should be retainedThe front doors may be relocated to its original location. The doorframe and fanlight should be retainedStone flagging to interior may be replaced with unglazed tessellated tile. |\n| (28) Bay window including parapet and flat roof | The bay window and its elements should be retained and conserved |\n| (29) French doors | The French doors and associated elements including hardware should be retained and conservedReinstatement of the earlier narrow doors to eastern elevation is not requiredSteel security doors have been designed sympathetically to the doors and should be retainedDo not modify early doors to include double glazing. |\n| (30) Windows | The early casement windows, Gothic windows (porch) and multi-paned double hung windows should be retained and conservedAssociated elements including hardware should be retainedDo not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (31) Shutters | The early shutters (pre-1957) should be retained and conservedShutters of later date may be removed or modified.Do not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (32) Post 1950s additions | Additions may be retained or demolishedIf removed, the original details of the walls should be reinstated. |\n| (33) Service wing | Service wing may be retained or demolished. |\n| (34) Entry hall including Entry lobby | The entry hall and lobby in its current configuration should be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (35) Drawing room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating original wall between roomsSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (36) Dining room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating the opening size between dining and drawing roomSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (37) Prime Minister’s study | Should be retained in its current configurationThe glass doors to the east may be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (38) Green room | Should be retained in its current configurationShelving to either side of fireplace may be altered or removed and former door in this area may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (39) Hallways and stairs | Should be retained in its current configurationThe narrow hall should not be reinstated at ground floorSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (40) Family room | Should be retained in its current configurationSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (41) Bedrooms | Should be retained in its current configurationFireplace may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved. |\n| (42) Bathrooms | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (43) Spaces in service wing | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (44) Internal joinery, including doors, architraves, and skirtings | All pre-1950s joinery should be retained and conserved in situ to reflect the different periods of developmentWhere joinery is polished, polish finish should be retained and not painted overConservation works should consider reinstating the polished/grained finish to early joinery. |\n| (45) Services | See 7.7.12 |\n| (46) Garage | The garage may be altered internally. |\n| (47) Guard house | The meandering paths should be retainedThe guard house may be altered or demolished. |\n| (48) Storeroom | The storeroom may be altered or demolished. |\n| (49) Moveable items | See 7.7.18 |\n\n## 7.9 New work\n\n### 7.9.1 Adaptive re-use\n\nKirribilli House and Garden was constructed as a residence in 1856 and used as a residence during the key period of significance Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920. The site has continued its residential function when it became the Official Sydney Residence of the Prime Minister in 1957, hence the current use is consistent with the historical significance of the site. The residential use is evidenced in the planning of the house and garden as well as its physical fabric.\n\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | The most compatible use for Kirribilli House and Garden is a residential useKirribilli House and Garden should be retained as an Official Sydney Establishment of the Prime Minister and its ownership continued by the CommonwealthBefore considering adaptive re-use an assessment should be made of the compatibility of new use to the site’s historical function, potential loss of associations with prime ministerial roles and potential impacts (physical and visual) on heritage significanceFuture adaptive reuse should also consider hierarchy of public and private use of parts of the site and where feasible allowing public access. |\n| ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.2 New development, additions and infills\n\nThe original house built in 1856 was located on the smoothed platform above the rock outcrop centred on the site. The house was extended to the west in the latter two phases. Minor infills and extension to the house have occurred also taken place during this time. Outbuildings were located as a garden structure on the central garden area, to the west of the site and harbourside structures to the eastern boundary. There is opportunity to restore the ruins of the harbourside structures. Modifications or replacement of the service wing from 1957 is possible. Elsewhere on the site, there is limited opportunity for development without potential impact to heritage significance. Any development of the laundry building which is owned by OOSG has potential to impact the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. There is additional opportunity for development if the site was consolidated with Admiralty House (investigated in Kirribilli House Master Plan Report (Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd, 1981). Opportunities should be considered through a new masterplan study.\n\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | There is minimal opportunity for new development, additions and infills at Kirribilli House and GardenUse of existing spaces should be maximised prior to considering alternatives to developAll other opportunities that have little or no impacts to heritage values should be exhausted prior to considering new developmentRestoration of the harbourside structures should be considered.There is opportunity to modify or replace the service wing from 1957New development should consider the existing architectural style, forms and masses and ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic and do not compete with the Rustic Victorian character of the placeNew work should adopt the principle of reversibility to mitigate potential impactsNew work should use high quality of materials |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is not a static house museum and it should continue to evolve with each incumbent as the requirements for its use change. Changes to the historical uses, however, should be carefully assessed for compatibility of spaces and only implemented once all other options have been investigated and discarded.\n\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | Change of use to spaces are permissibleAreas of low significance have high tolerance and flexibility for changesAreas of high significance have low tolerance and flexibility and compatible uses should be first considered before considering options. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.10 Conservation in accordance with significance\n\nMuch of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House is embodied in the physical fabric of the place. Section 5.4.1 of this HMP sets out the grading scale for significant elements ranging from those elements of exceptional significance down to those that are intrusive. It follows that conservation action should be related to an element’s relative level of significance. Grading of significant fabric in each element/building is included in 5.4.3 and guidelines for managing change are identified in Section 5.4.2.\n\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | Much of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House and Garden is embodied in the physical elements and fabric of the place. Conservation action should be related to the elements or fabric’s level of significanceAny repair, conservation or reconstruction works to significant elements or facades must be undertaken with appropriate direction by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, architect and/or relevant materials specialist/s or conservator and with reference to historical documentation. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n## 7.11 Conservation of Materials\n\n### 7.11.1 Traditional materials\n\nKirribilli House and Garden consists of several traditional materials including slate, lead, copper, sandstone, brick, cast iron and timber.\n\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | A heritage architect should be engaged to undertake works and provide advice on to traditional materialsWhen repairing or altering traditional materials, a qualified and experienced traditional trades contractor should be engaged to undertake the work or supervise the work. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.2 Reconstruction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has many details that are missing or have been undertaken in an inappropriate manner. When these works are proposed to be reconstructed, the work should be based on documentary evidence of an earlier state.\n\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | Reconstruction is appropriate only where an element is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the elementReconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection. |\n| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes\n\nWhen repainting, the choice of paint colours should be based on an understanding of original colours and finishes used – through documentary and analysis of physical evidence (e.g., paint scrapes). \nIf repainting is required, original colour schemes should be re-instated for significant elements. \nA colour palette and interior design advice was provided in the 2016 HMP and should be used to guide future works.\n\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | Refer to Kirribilli House – Colour Palette and Interior Design Heritage Advice, Appendix O. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods\n\nThere are areas of the site that have been inappropriately repaired or conserved. These include the cement mortar repairs to masonry and conservation works where details are exact replicas. \nWhen opportunity arises, undertake works to remedy areas. Works should be prioritised and only those items identified as intrusive should be modified.\n\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | When practical, previous inappropriate repair and conservation methods should be remedied with the use of traditional methods according to priority. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP\n\nThis HMP should be reviewed every five years and considered for full update every ten years or when large-scale changes are proposed that are not considered in this HMP. The implementation of the HMP should also be reviewed every five years.\n\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | This HMP should be reviewed every five years (or when large-scale changes are proposed that have not already been considered in this HMP)This HMP should be reviewed every ten years and considered for a full update.The implementation of the HMP should be reviewed every five years (assessing works priorities, if the HMP is actually implementing the policies and strategies, and the condition of the place and the condition of its listed Commonwealth Heritage values – see table below).These reviews should be documented as reports with findings and actions clearly documented, |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n```html\n

Commonwealth Heritage Values

Reporting and monitoring

Criterion A - Processes – Attributes: The fabric and form of the house

When reviews are undertaken on the effectiveness of the implementation of the HMP policies, these should be applied to the Commonwealth heritage values through a qualitative assessment of the retention of the attributes listed against each relevant criterion (A, B, D, E, G and H). The success in retaining these attributes and thus the associated values that reside in them should be documented as reports with clearly stated findings and actions.

Criterion B - Rarity – Attributes: The house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour

Criterion D - Characteristic values – Attributes: The building's form, its external styling and details, and its early and original fabric

Criterion E - Aesthetic characteristics – Attributes:

The architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour

Criterion G - Social value – Attributes: The house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days

Criterion H - Significant people – Attributes: The whole of the building, both internally and externally

\n```\n\n \n\n### 7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis\n\nA review of reports for the site has identified knowledge gaps. Opportunities should be sought for these to be addressed as part of future investigations and assessments.\n\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | Opportunities should be sought to fill the following knowledge gaps:The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysisAlthough there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be locatedDiscussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruinsDiscussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listedDemonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistasConfirmation of the position and detail of the original staircaseThe detail of the original front doorThe detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevationThe early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of StudyThe detail of the original verandahThe detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracketDetails of the original drawing room windowsThe early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and gratesThe detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbourDetails of original fencing and gates, |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n \n\n| Policy | Responsibility | Priority | Timing |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- |\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | PM&C to adopt and implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C to notify, review and consult | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | PM&C to engage appropriate experts | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | PM&C to induct | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | PM&C to manage | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 9:Saftey | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 10: Access for people with a disability | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | PM&C to plan and coordinate | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 13. Security | PM&C to provide | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 14 Security infrastructure | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 16. Setting | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 18. Significant views | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | PM&C to undertake | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 21-23. Grounds generally / House generally / Maintenance | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 24 Emergency works policy | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 26. General | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 30. Services | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | PM&C to engage appropriate specialists | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 33. Public access | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 35. Movable items | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | PM&C to develop | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 38. | PM&C to conserve and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-10 years |\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-5 years |\n\n## 7.12 Implementation plan\n\nThe following implementation plan should be utilised for the policies listed above.\n\n \n\n# 8.0 Maintenance Schedule\n\n## 8.1 Introduction\n\nRegular, on-going inspection and maintenance is vital to the longevity of heritage buildings and to preserve their heritage significance. The following section provides the required catch up maintenance, a cyclical inspection and maintenance schedule.\n\n## 8.2 Catch-up Maintenance\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been well maintained, resulting in a good overall condition. Conservation of the exterior stonework has been carried out within the last five years. A few catch-up maintenance items were noted. Cleaning of the exterior has been added to the maintenance schedule in Section 8.3.","sortOrder":152},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.1 Conservation principles","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.1 Conservation principles","content":"### 7.7.1 Conservation principles\n\nThe Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, known as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013), \nis 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. \nThere are seven principles that guide the care of heritage places:\n\n1\\. The place itself is important\n\n2\\. Understand the significance of the place\n\n3\\. Understand the fabric\n\n4\\. Significance should guide decisions\n\n5\\. Do as much as necessary, as little as possible\n\n6\\. Keep records\n\n7\\. Do everything in a logical order.\n\nThe use of the terms, conservation, preservation, reconstruction, adaptation, fabric, maintenance, repair, and compatible use in this report are defined in The Burra Charter.\n\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | Future work on the complex should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and its GuidelinesThe Commonwealth heritage values of the place should be the basis for all future planning and development. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":153},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.2 Setting","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.2 Setting","content":"### 7.7.2 Setting\n\nThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting is a key contributory element to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden and its landmark qualities. The site is part of a continued landscape that includes Admiralty House on Kirribilli Point. Having met CHL Criterion B, D and E that relates to the setting of the place, it is crucial that the policy below be adopted to protect and maintain the CHL values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 16. Setting | The landmark qualities of Kirribilli House and Garden should be retained and protectedThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting should be retained, protected and promoted. This includes such key elements as the Victorian picturesque qualities (sweeping lawn, meandering paths, dramatic views and wild character), topography, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, harbour views and access to waterwayRetain and protect the continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. |\n| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |","sortOrder":154},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.3 Streetscape","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.3 Streetscape","content":"### 7.7.3 Streetscape\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to Kirribilli Conservation Area, which has been characterised by a mix of small, medium and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and contemporary residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | Kirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to the Kirribilli Conservation Area, hence contributory elements, including Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture, principal elevations, established garden, integration to topography and homogeneous scale, should all be retained and protected. |\n| ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":155},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.4 Significant views","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.4 Significant views","content":"### 7.7.4 Significant views\n\nKirribilli House within Kirribilli Point forms part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape which is appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from Sydney Opera House, Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point and distant views from Bradley’s Head.\n\nThere is a harmonious relationship between the house, garden and the wider landscape which is the harbour setting. The site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden which include panoramas, framed and filtered views. This contributes to the picturesque setting and is part of the early planning of the site that evidence the key period of significance. Significant views identified have been included in Section 3.2.1 and 3.6 and are defined in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.\n\nFigure 7‑2.\n\n| Policy 18. Significant views | Significant views to and from Kirribilli House and Garden should be maintained and protectedThese include but are not limited to those identified in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.Figure 7‑2. |\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of the harbour near Kirribilli House outlining the significant views](image.178.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑1: Significant views to Kirribilli House from various vantage points of Sydney Harbour (maps.six.nsw.gov.au\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of Kirribilli House grounds highlighting the significant views seen from the property](image.179.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑2: Significant views from Kirribilli House and Garden (maps.six.nsw.gov.au)","sortOrder":156},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.5 Heritage curtilage","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.5 Heritage curtilage","content":"### 7.7.5 Heritage curtilage\n\nKirribilli House retains its original physical curtilage which is defined by the existing site boundary. \nThe site has maintained the early subdivision from Admiralty House estate and sold in 1854 to \nAdolph Feez who built the house in 1856. The earliest access to the site is likely to have been from the harbour and the earliest plans included boat access on the eastern boundary. The earliest plans also show access from Kirribilli Avenue.\n\nA visual curtilage can be extended to include vistas from the harbour and beyond from various vantage points.\n\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | The physical curtilage defined by the existing site boundary including access to the foreshore and Kirribilli Avenue should be retained and protectedA visual curtilage that includes vantage points of Kirribilli House and Garden from the harbourside should be retained protected. |\n| ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":157},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.6 Masterplans","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.6 Masterplans","content":"### 7.7.6 Masterplans\n\nKirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House are major elements of Kirribilli Point that form part of the continuous Sydney Harbour landscape. There are both built and natural elements from both sites that are historically significant which should be preserved and promoted. Developing a masterplan will assist in identifying areas for future development, planning and maintenance of the site and minimise any detrimental effects from ad-hoc activities.\n\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | When opportunity presents, undertake one masterplan for Kirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House to guide future works. Include a study of the historical development of the site architectural style, massing, geometry/axis, vistas, and circulation (vehicular/pedestrian) studies. The plan should include a review of existing infrastructure/services and develop a site wide methodology for implementing new work. The plan should identify areas of future development including scale, height, massing and materials for potential future development. The masterplan should include a landscape masterplan that incorporates both sites as one landscape element of Kirribilli PointWhen opportunity presents, provide a detailed and updated version of the current Landscape Management Plan for Kirribilli House(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) to include the heritage significance of areas of the garden, identify specific historic elements relating to significance, consolidate information fromGeoff Britton’s landscape assessment (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H) and the AECOM Tree Survey, 2023Using the above information, compile a detailed landscape design for the garden with clear heritage and design principles for each garden areaThe landscape masterplan/updated Landscape Management Plan should study water drainage and succession planting to re-establish the lost tree canopies. It should also identify plant species on site that have high water consumption and propose alternative sub-species (whilst retaining the heritage values) that are more resilient. It should also consider reducing the ongoing erosion of the sandstone cliffA qualified heritage architect, heritage landscape architect and relevant service consultants should be engaged to undertake this workThis HMP should be updated in the next review to include findings from the masterplan and the updated Landscape Management Plan. |\n| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |","sortOrder":158},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.7 Grounds generally","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.7 Grounds generally","content":"### 7.7.7 Grounds generally\n\nThe garden at Kirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Vestiges of the pre-European landscape, Phase 1 –19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the grounds generally.\n\n| Policy 21. Grounds generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:- Vestiges of the pre-European landscape evidenced in the indigenous vegetation, rock outcrops, and sandstone cliffs, reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline- Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of thePeople-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque qualities, sweeping lawn, meandering stone paths, terracing, dry stone walling, fencing, dramatic views(panoramic, framed and filtered) and floristic (leaf form, colour, and texture).- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the plantings associated with significant people- Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the instruction of terracing, steps, trees, and plants (exotic and native)Retain a high quality of garden maintenance by engaging trade professionals with proven experience in horticulture, garden maintenance and heritage gardensEngage arborists as required to manage the health and safety of older treesPrior to removal and pruning of trees consider impacts to significant views (panoramas, framed and filtered)Do not introduce new structures in the garden except for temporary structures such as marquees and climbing framesDo not introduce new garden beds or new species of plants to the site unless implemented by a landscape masterplan or management planKeep a record of plants that have been part of memorials, functions, planted or gifted by dignitariesBuilt memorials should be avoided in the garden to retain the Victorian style and residential significance of the place. Australian artwork/sculptures may be incorporated if they are sympathetic to the significance of the placeOutdoor furniture, fixtures and fittings should be sympathetic of the heritage values of the place. Retain cast iron urns and sundialsRetain and repair as necessary the boundary fences to the sitePrior to implementing the Landscape Management Plan(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) for detailed works to hard and soft landscaping, resolve the inconsistencies of heritage landscape principles from Geoff Britton’s assessments updated information from AECOM’s Tree Survey 2023 through a landscape masterplan/detailed management plan or landscape design. |\n| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":159},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.8 House generally","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.8 House generally","content":"### 7.7.8 House generally\n\nKirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 \n(Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the house generally.\n\n| Policy 22. House generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque setting, modest scale, irregular massing, steeply pitched gabled roofs with highly decorated bargeboards, prominent gable, gabled dormer, slate roof, textured masonry walling, bay windows, timber verandah and tall medieval looking chimneys, fireplaces, timber joinery- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the single storey addition (wet), bay window replacements to double hung window, gabled roof, and room to first floor, hallway widened, addition of bathrooms, garagePhase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the service wing, single storey additions to either side of porch, replacement of shutters, verandah infill for storeroom, timber valence reconstruction, security screens, eastern gable windows, main stair reconstruction, and conservation worksConserve and promote the relationship of the house to the garden such as verandahs and garden elementsRetain and protect the internal arrangement of spaces, inter-relationships of rooms and volumes of spacesRetain and conserve the hierarchy of public and private spacesThe house may be altered to suit the function as an Official Prime Minister’s Residence whilst respecting the heritage values of the placeNew work should not replicate previous styles but be of a contemporary style and sympathetic to the heritage values of the placeReconstruction works should be identifiable through subtle variation in detail and should be dated. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":160},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.9 Maintenance and repair","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.9 Maintenance and repair","content":"### 7.7.9 Maintenance and repair\n\nSystematic maintenance will conserve significant fabric longer for the ultimate benefit of future generations. A site wide maintenance plan is provided in Section 8.0.\n\n| Policy 23. Maintenance | Implement the General Maintenance Plan included in this HMP in accordance with the policies contained in this HMPThe maintenance plan should be adopted by JLL under their contractual obligationsThe maintenance plan should be integrated into the PM&C asset maintenance processes. A Heritage Asset works/maintenance record should also be prepared and maintained for each activityPrior to undertaking any maintenance works, confirmed that the activity proposed is maintenance and complies with the policies an in this HMP. This should be confirmed by PM&CA dedicated budget should be implemented to guide on-going maintenance work on the significant elements identified in this HMPAdequate funding arrangements for maintenance and urgent repairs identified in this HMP should be put in placeIncrease rate of maintenance following inclement weather such as high winds and storms. Inspect all weatherproofing elements of the buildingsEnsure all contractors are made aware of the heritage values of the place by providing the Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P) to all contractors on site.Undertake a structural condition assessment of the site every five years by a qualified structural engineer. |\n| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":161},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.10 Emergency Works","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.10 Emergency Works","content":"### 7.7.10 Emergency Works\n\nEmergency works should always be undertaken as a priority, wherever possible they should seek to be completely reversible. Emergency works (such as rectifying storm damage, repairing water leaks or attending electrical malfunctions) are a necessary aspect of managing the maintenance, safety and condition of Kirribilli House. By their very nature, they often have to be undertaken quickly with little planning. If works occur (due to safety or security reasons) that are not sympathetic, such work should be ‘undone’ as soon as practicable.\n\n| Policy 24. Emergency Works | Emergency works must always be undertaken as quickly as possible.Any emergency works should be recorded by PM&C, with the issue, condition prior to repairs and condition after repairs (including photographs) recorded as a minimum.PM&C, as the agency responsible for contractors carrying out emergency works to the fixed building elements, should be notified as soon as possible to inspect the temporary repairs and decide on a more permanent solution.All emergency works should be reversible whenever possible. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |","sortOrder":162},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, a","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience","content":"### 7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience\n\nSustainable and resilient methods are required to manage the adverse effects of climate change. The skilled craftsmanship and composition of old materials result in heritage buildings that are durable. The re-use of existing buildings and fabric reduces the embodied energy required for new development. Hence, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings should be considered as a first measure before new development is considered. An energy audit/thermal assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden will identify areas energy expenditure.\n\nThe Australian Public Service (APS) must comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy. APS Net Zero will be achieved by actively reducing emissions from APS operations as well as through offsets. This initiative will also encourage transparency by requiring Commonwealth entities to publicly report on their emissions, whilst supporting the uplift of climate capability across the APS.\n\nExtreme weather patterns in the future mean that there will be periods of extreme drought and wet weather as well as erratic events and increased climate induced disasters. Environmental factors specific to Kirribilli House and Garden in the future include:\n\n- Increase in ambient humidity levels and condensation within buildings leading to mould and damp\n- Dry weather patterns creating shrinking of fabric and cracks to structure\n- Intense rainfalls and storms causing inefficient water drainage from buildings and areas of the garden, damage to property\n- Long periods of rain\n- The existing rising damp conditions to worsen.\n\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience(a) Assessments/audits | Comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy.Should the opportunity arise, undertake the following assessments/audits:- Undertake an initial and periodic energy, water and thermal comfort assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden to identify areas of deficiencies, ideally over a year (to account for season)- Assess the existing ventilation in buildings and implement methods of improvement to minimise humidity in buildings e.g., sub floor ventilation- Assess rain and surface water runoff across the whole site and in buildings. This may include installing sensors to measure ground moisture. Implement improvements especially during torrential rainfall events- Assess the viability of measures to reduce water and energy consumption in the garden (additional rainwater tanks, automatic watering, solar powered garden lights, drought tolerant plants and grasses). |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (b) Implementation | Implement low impact measures sympathetic to heritage values such as upgrades to fittings and fixtures (e.g., light fittings, water closets, taps) and services (air conditioning units, gas fireplaces)Increase the rate of maintenance to existing buildings during periods of extreme weather eventsPromote adaptive reuse of buildings. Demonstrate and exhaust all other measures to ensure existing buildings are used efficiently prior to constructing new buildings and structuresSolar panels should be avoided on the main house structure to avoid impact on significant views of the house. Solar panels may be installed on the laundry building if an HIA has determined that physical and visual impacts are minimal. The works will require permission from OOSGGNew work/developments should incorporate sustainable design and construction methodsUndertake any catch-up maintenance activities. Ensure that cyclical maintenance and emergency maintenance are activated immediately. |\n| (c) Management plans | Develop a Sustainability Action Plan for the site and include all sustainability measures. Include a risk register and identify risks to heritage elements including loss of heritage significant plant species, loss of lawns, property damage from high winds, erosion impact to garden, risk to heritage fabric from damage, increase in pests and diseases in garden. Include measures to educate staff, contractors on creating an awareness of sustainability issues.Develop and implement a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the site that identifies potential risks to the site and its heritage values to prepare Kirribilli House and Garden for future events. This plan should identify elements of the site that maybe sacrificial losses. |","sortOrder":163},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management","content":"### 7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management\n\nIt is recognised that Kirribilli House and Garden is located within a larger cultural landscape of high social, cultural, and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples and will apply a precautionary approach to the management of heritage values.\n\n| Policy 26. General | The overarching aim for the management of the Indigenous heritage values should be done in partnership with Indigenous stakeholders.Consider the preparation of an interpretation strategy covering intangible Indigenous heritage values in the context of the broader intangible cultural landscape. This should be undertaken with Indigenous consultation.Indigenous stakeholders should be consulted regarding any potential impacts if any Indigenous heritage values are identified in relation to Kirribilli House and Garden. Consultation, in all instances, should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Ask First Guidelines.Should a plan be formulated for the management of the garden, there may be an opportunity for consideration to be given to Indigenous plantings to be added to the existing landscape, to allow for interpretation of the history of the location. Such a garden plan should be guided by the findings of the interpretation strategy and the consultation outcomes of the intangible cultural landscape values. |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nPrior to commencement of any new development activities/works within Kirribilli House and Garden, all relevant site personnel and contractors should be made aware of Indigenous heritage values. The discovery of unexpected Indigenous heritage should trigger ”Stop Works” as detailed in Policy 27.\n\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | Unexpected Indigenous Heritage Finds Procedure (excluding human skeletal remains)1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the artefact/site must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing).2. Notification - The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management about the discovery and seek advice.3. Impact Assessment - If required, undertake an assessment for the proposed activity/works in accordance with relevant heritage guidelines.4. Impact Mitigation - Implement management actions detailed in the assessment.5. Reporting - Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the new site and any implemented management actions.Unexpected Human Skeletal Remains Procedure - For any confirmed or suspected human skeletal remains, the following procedure should be followed:1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the remains must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing). The remains must not be left unattended.2. Notification: The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management of the discovery. They, in turn, must notify the Coroner’s Office and the Military Police, who will notify appropriate local authorities. If it is confirmed by these authorities that the remains are Indigenous Ancestral Remains, they should, as soon as practicable, report the existence of the remains to Indigenous stakeholders and relevant State-based heritage authorities.3. Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Management should consult with Indigenous stakeholders and an appropriately experienced and qualified heritage consultant. In general, the first management option should be avoidance of the location. If this is not possible, then relocation of the remains to a designated keeping place, or reburial at a location near to the original (but within an area that will not be impacted) should be undertaken. The wishes of the Indigenous stakeholders should guide these actions. The excavation and handling of any Indigenous skeletal remains should follow best practice scientific guidelines (e.g., NSW Heritage Office, 1998).4. GEMS Update:- Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the remains and implemented management actions. |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nConsider the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process, acknowledging security and safety constraints.\n\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | Kirribilli House and Garden is an active, high security area with access needing to be arranged in advance through appropriate personnel, with all visitors subject to security clearance and induction processes. Existing security and induction procedures notwithstanding, should Indigenous values be identified in the future, the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process should then be developed, which could potentially provide approval for on-site cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies. In general, should any interested Indigenous community members wish to enter for cultural reasons, they should contact the appropriate management contact who should facilitate the visit. |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nIndigenous stakeholders should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any public disclosures pertaining to the Indigenous heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | The investigation of intangible Indigenous cultural heritage values, and in the event that finds occur during future works, may result in the identification of Indigenous values relating to Kirribilli House and Garden. Should information regarding such Indigenous heritage values be proposed for release into the public domain, Indigenous stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on any disclosures prior to their release. All comments received should be considered and inform the final disseminated disclosure. |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |","sortOrder":164},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.13 Services","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.13 Services","content":"### 7.7.13 Services\n\nThe insertion of any new services should be carefully considered and consider the original structure and fabric of the heritage buildings to minimise impact.\n\n| Policy 30. Services | Services should be minimised in their extent and carefully planned to minimise damage to significant fabricNew, replacement and upgraded services should use existing conduits and ducts wherever possibleCeiling-mounted fittings, such as detectors and light fittings with minimal fixings are recommendedSurface-mounted vertical risers are permitted, provided their style and finish is compatible with the cultural significance of the space through which they pass. Wherever possible, vertical risers should be in minor spaces of least cultural significanceLight fittings and electrical accessories (switch plates, GPOs) should not be period reproductions but discrete modern fixturesAir-conditioning units should be discreet in location and appearance. Any associated works should be positioned to avoid damage to significant fabricExternal air-conditioning units should be concealed from view, not located on the front façade of the building, and positioned to avoid damage to significant external fabric. |\n| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":165},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring","content":"### 7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring\n\nAreas of high archaeological potential have been identified at the subject site. If excavation is proposed in these areas, further investigation by a suitably qualified archaeologist would be required prior to commencement of works.\n\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | Any excavation in areas of high archaeological potential should be carried out under archaeological supervision by a qualified archaeologistIf underfloor deposits are planned to be removed, engage an archaeologist to remove and assess to determine the presence of any artefactsIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, implement an unexpected finds procedure must be followed (see Figure 4‑27). |\n| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |","sortOrder":166},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.15 Carparking and circulation","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.15 Carparking and circulation","content":"### 7.7.15 Carparking and circulation\n\nThe site has limited potential for incorporating carparking and vehicular access without impacting on the garden setting of the site. The driveway loop originates from the Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 \n(Official Residence of the Prime Minister) and is graded as an item of moderate significance, \nhence may be modified for future requirements.\n\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | An increase to the number of carparking spaces currently provided is not recommended i.e., spaces for permanent garaged vehicles and informal parking of cars on drivewayThe driveway loop may be modified for future carparking and vehicular access but must have little to no impact on the garden setting. |\n| ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":167},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.16 Public access","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.16 Public access","content":"### 7.7.16 Public access\n\nThere is limited public access due to security and privacy reasons. However, the site holds many functions where large number of people can attend the site at any one time. Open days of the house and garden are also held. It is important that the heritage significance of the site is communicated, and significant fabric is protected during these times by implementing a Visitor Management Strategy.\n\n| Policy 33. Public access | Undertake and implement a Visitor Management Strategy for the site.Public open days should occur every year however the level at which the property is open to the public should be decided in conjunction with the incumbentsAt a minimum the grounds should be open for inspection during open daysCare should be taken to protect artworks and furniture during open daysInterpretative materials should be available on the day |\n| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":168},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.17 Archival recording","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.17 Archival recording","content":"### 7.7.17 Archival recording\n\nAn archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved for removal should be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage specialist in accordance with the Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, \nrevised 2006) guideline. The record should aim to capture the item prior to, during and after the proposed works. A copy of the archival record be provided to the local council and the NLA.\n\nCurrently there are several sites that hold vast amount of historical information relating to the site including, State Records, NLA, State Library of NSW, Stanton Library and PM&C. This information should be consolidated, and a central repository of information should be established.\n\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | Undertake an archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved to be demolished. The works should comply with Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, revised 2006) guidelineProvide a copy of the archival record to PM&C, council and NLA(with redacted information on security)Establish a central repository of information of historical data. |\n| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":169},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.18 Movable items","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.18 Movable items","content":"### 7.7.18 Movable items\n\nThere are several movable items associated with Kirribilli House and Garden. These include a wide variety of furniture, art and memorabilia predominantly lent and managed by the Australian Fund (see detailed identification, care and management set out in the catalogue by Australian Fund, The Australian Fund, 2022). Additional items found on site should be assessed and recorded by suitably qualified persons and conserved on site or protected in off-site storage.\n\n| Policy 35. Movable items | The existing management practice and collaboration with Australian Fund and PM&C should continueIf additional moveable items are found, they should be identified and assessed by a suitably qualified person and conserved on site, or protected in an off-site storage facilityMovable items should be assessed for suitability for incorporation in an Interpretation Plan for the site. |\n| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":170},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.19 Heritage interpretation","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.19 Heritage interpretation","content":"### 7.7.19 Heritage interpretation\n\nThere is an opportunity for the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden to be promoted to the public by undertaking an Interpretation Strategy. The strategy should be prepared by a heritage consultant and appropriately funded. This strategy should include consideration of security and safety requirements whilst communicating the heritage significance of the site.\n\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | An Interpretation Strategy should be prepared for Kirribilli House and Garden by a suitably qualified heritage consultantThe Interpretation Strategy should consider privacy, safety, and security requirements of the siteConsider the use of wide range of media, digital, paper, physical (signage, fabric) and sensory elements (e.g., textured materials in the garden and soundscapes)Include associations with significant people for the house as well as the garden (include signage adjacent to significant plants).Consider displaying historic photographsIncorporate any oral histories (e.g., descendants of the Feez family, former Prime Ministers)Include Indigenous heritage values and consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal parties.If there is an opportunity, undertake an Indigenous Intangible Cultural Values study and to incorporate reference to Indigenous past in the garden through a cohesive approach.An Indigenous Interpretation Strategy may be prepared as a separate documentCreate a unified and consistent style, sympathetic to the heritage aesthetic of the site, for interpretation of the site e.g., style of fonts and colours for signs. |\n| ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":171},{"sectionNumber":"7.7.20 Signage and external lighting","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.7.20 Signage and external lighting","content":"### 7.7.20 Signage and external lighting\n\nThere is limited signage on site that is in keeping with the residential character of the site. There is also a mixture of light fittings in the house and garden with majority of fittings originating from the 1957 modifications and some reproduced Victorian lamps.\n\nSignage and external lighting can add to the character of the site. Signage and lighting should not adversely affect the significant heritage fabric and overall character of the site. When installing signage, the fixings should be reversible and not damage significant fabric.\n\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | Should the opportunity, arise develop a complex-wide signage and external lighting plan for the site.Signage and lighting should be in harmony with the historic character of the site and compliant with current Australian health and safety standardsFree standing signage systems should be used for major directional signs, with smaller signs applied to selected areas with a minimum of fixingsSigns should not be attached to the brickwork walls of the buildingsIf the opportunity arises, a lighting designer or architect should be engaged to undertake a site wide study of existing lighting to the house and garden, and propose a lighting plan that is a contemporary design and sympathetic to the heritage values of the siteIncorporate sustainable lighting practices. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":172},{"sectionNumber":"7.8","sectionType":"part","heading":"Contributory elements","content":"## 7.8 Contributory elements\n\nContributory elements (tangible and intangible) to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden have been identified in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements. \nThese elements are essential to the significance of the place and should be conserved according to the following policies.\n\n| Policy 38 | |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (1) Curtilage | See policy 7.7.5. |\n| (2) Relationship to Admiralty House | Conserve and protect views to Admiralty House and key elements within its gardenRetain the existing access points at the western boundary. |\n| (3) Views and vistas to Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (4) Views and vistas from Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (5) Pre-European vestiges | Retain and protect features of the pre-European landscape including, plantings, rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs. |\n| (6) Entrance gates, stone walls, and fences | Retain and conserve stone walls and wrought iron gates.Consider replacing the side entry gate to an interpreted detail of the early gate from 1913 (Figure 5-11Figure 5‑6)Fencing to the northern boundary may be altered to interpret earlier detailsThe fencing along the boundary to Admiralty House may be altered to a more open style of fence to interpret the connection between the two sites. |\n\n \n\n| (7) Driveway, driveway loop and entrance forecourt | An entry precinct that is grand and in keeping with the Victorian themed garden style should be retainedPlant species should be sourced from available archival sources of the Victorian eraThe entry drive should not be increased in area for future useAn updated Landscape Management Plan should review the significance of the species of camellias to confirm their association with the work of Professor E G WaterhouseA Landscape Management Plan should seek to undertake further research and gain expert opinion are required to confirm appropriateness of the Jacaranda trees on the site. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (8) Upper eastern grassed banks and terraces | The steep grassed banks should be retained and existing view preserved. |\n| (9) Lower eastern lawn terrace and eastern walk | The steep grassed banks of the lower terrace should be retained as an open space permitting views to the harbour and views to the house from the harbourPlantings to the south should be consistent with the Victorian eraOpportunities for reinstating Indigenous vegetation should be investigated. |\n| (10) Northeast gardens and walks | The sandstone outcrops should be retained and not concealedThe meandering paths should be retainedPlantings should be appropriate to the Victorian era and should also address loss of privacy to the northern boundary from tree lossThe poorly executed sandstone paving on north-eastern and lower grounds should be reviewed. |\n| (11) Northeastern terrace | The stone wall and paving should be reconstructed with a rustic theme, providing a focus for the existing rock outcropCourses should follow the horizontal bias with no vertical elementsPlantings should be consistent with the Victorian era, promote Indigenous vegetation, provide privacy, and retain filtered views. |\n| (12) Clifftop garden | The wild character of the garden should be retained without impeding on viewsThe safety aspects of the garden should be reviewedIndigenous vegetation should be promoted. |\n| (13) Foreshore and cliffs | The foreshore and cliff line with sandstone face should be retainedIndigenous plantings should be promotedSafety and design of the access pathways that lead to the boat harbour and bathing pool below should be reviewed. |\n| (14) Harbourside ruins | The boat harbour, bathing pool, boatsheds and retaining walls should be retained and conservedAn archival record of existing structures should be undertakenFurther physical studies of this area should be undertakenExisting retaining walls should be stabilised |\n| (15) Southern lawn terrace and rockeries | The stone flagged areas, rockeries, and terraces should be retained and conservedThe steel pipe handrail should be upgraded to comply with current access codes. |\n| (16) Western garden including hedged lawn and kitchen garden | The hedged lawn and kitchen garden should be retained and conserved |\n| (17) Paths and stairs | Existing paths and stairs should be retainedA landscape masterplan should study existing paths and stairs and propose a plan considering hierarchy of paths, detailing of edging, consolidation, and cohesive palette of materialsrandom stone paving to lower areas should be removed and replaced with bitumenThe drainage of paths away from the building line should be ensured |\n| (18) Significant trees | All significant trees and plants identified in this HMP and Landscape Management Plan should be retained and protected.A program for succession of identified plantings should be undertaken, particularly to address loss of tree canopy and privacy along Kirribilli Avenue. |\n| (19) Victorian Rustic Gothic style features | The stylistic features of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture should be retained, protected and conserved. |\n| (20) North elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe entry porch in its current configuration should be retained. Steps may be altered but should remain symmetrical to the porchDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (21) East elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in its current configuration should be retained, including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (22) South elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in current configuration should be retained including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to nineteenth century wallsThe timber storeroom may be removed, and the original verandah may be reinstated. |\n| (23) West elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedRoom and gabled roof over the northwest corner of building should be retainedSingle storey parapet wing may be removed or alteredThe service wing may be removed or alteredThe awning entry may be removed or alteredDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (24) Roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods | The roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods should be retained and conservedIf required install, safety anchors on internal slopes. |\n| (25) Masonry walls | Masonry walls and associated elements should be retained and conservedRepairs and conservation work to masonry walls should follow traditional repair methodsDo not use cement render on pre-1950s wallsPaint finish should be retained. |\n| (26) Verandah | The verandah and associated elements should be retained and conservedDo not infill any part of the verandahStoreroom/infill to verandah may be retained or removedFuture replacement of roof should be corrugated copper. |\n| (27) Entry porch including front doors | The entry porch and doors should be retained and conservedThe entry steps may be altered but the symmetry and stone fabric should be retainedThe front doors may be relocated to its original location. The doorframe and fanlight should be retainedStone flagging to interior may be replaced with unglazed tessellated tile. |\n| (28) Bay window including parapet and flat roof | The bay window and its elements should be retained and conserved |\n| (29) French doors | The French doors and associated elements including hardware should be retained and conservedReinstatement of the earlier narrow doors to eastern elevation is not requiredSteel security doors have been designed sympathetically to the doors and should be retainedDo not modify early doors to include double glazing. |\n| (30) Windows | The early casement windows, Gothic windows (porch) and multi-paned double hung windows should be retained and conservedAssociated elements including hardware should be retainedDo not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (31) Shutters | The early shutters (pre-1957) should be retained and conservedShutters of later date may be removed or modified.Do not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (32) Post 1950s additions | Additions may be retained or demolishedIf removed, the original details of the walls should be reinstated. |\n| (33) Service wing | Service wing may be retained or demolished. |\n| (34) Entry hall including Entry lobby | The entry hall and lobby in its current configuration should be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (35) Drawing room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating original wall between roomsSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (36) Dining room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating the opening size between dining and drawing roomSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (37) Prime Minister’s study | Should be retained in its current configurationThe glass doors to the east may be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (38) Green room | Should be retained in its current configurationShelving to either side of fireplace may be altered or removed and former door in this area may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (39) Hallways and stairs | Should be retained in its current configurationThe narrow hall should not be reinstated at ground floorSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (40) Family room | Should be retained in its current configurationSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (41) Bedrooms | Should be retained in its current configurationFireplace may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved. |\n| (42) Bathrooms | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (43) Spaces in service wing | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (44) Internal joinery, including doors, architraves, and skirtings | All pre-1950s joinery should be retained and conserved in situ to reflect the different periods of developmentWhere joinery is polished, polish finish should be retained and not painted overConservation works should consider reinstating the polished/grained finish to early joinery. |\n| (45) Services | See 7.7.12 |\n| (46) Garage | The garage may be altered internally. |\n| (47) Guard house | The meandering paths should be retainedThe guard house may be altered or demolished. |\n| (48) Storeroom | The storeroom may be altered or demolished. |\n| (49) Moveable items | See 7.7.18 |","sortOrder":173},{"sectionNumber":"7.9","sectionType":"part","heading":"New work","content":"# 7.0 Managing heritage values\n\n## 7.1 Objectives\n\nThis HMP sets out a structure to assist PM&C for the future management of Kirribilli House and Garden are to ensure the operational duties continue to be carried out, while protecting the identified heritage values and achieving EPBC Act compliance. For historic heritage, it is to conserve the heritage significance through retention of buildings, fabric and landscape elements of significance including the preservation of the historical layout.\n\n## 7.2 Opportunities and constraints\n\nOpportunities and constraints arising from the identified heritage significance of a place establish \na baseline from where other issues such as maintenance and owner requirements can be considered. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance and requirements under the CHL.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden displays a high degree of significance due to the following:\n\n As the Official Sydney residence of the Australian Prime Minister since 1957\n The site evidences the early land grants to prominent Sydney residents\n Association with early public campaign to protect harbourside development in the 1920s\n Association with Admiralty House and forming part of a continued landscape that is Kirribilli Point\n The site has rare qualities as a surviving Victorian Rustic Gothic residence in a harbour setting and includes the remains of one of the earliest bathing pools on Sydney Harbour\n The site has representative values for its Victorian Rustic Gothic style of house and garden and\n The site is important to the people of Australia and is associated with various prime ministers, dignitaries, and significant people in the community.\n\nOpportunities arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Maintain a high quality of care and management of the site\n Interpreting the heritage values of the site including the different phases of development\n Presenting a cohesive landscape of Kirribilli Point that includes both Kirribilli and Admiralty House\n Potential for development or rebuilding of areas that are poorly presented and placing unnecessary pressures on security and privacy of the site and\n Review and re-design of the garden to emphasise heritage significance and introduce other elements of significance of the site.\n\nConstraints arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Operational, security and privacy requirements from the use of the site as a place of residence of the Prime Minister and visits by dignitaries\n Physical constraints of the site for development and\n Maintenance requirements and upkeep of the site resulting from age, building materials, siting, and damp issues of the site.\n\n## 7.3 Planned Works\n\nThe following works are currently planned for this site:\n\n Repairs to the garden paving\n Seawall stabilisation\n\nAll works will be undertaken in accordance with Policy 7 of this HMP.\n\n## 7.4 Policies and guidelines\n\nThe role of the conservation policies in this HMP is to provide specific guidelines for the conservation, on-going care, development and use of Kirribilli House and Garden so that its cultural significance is appropriately maintained, enhanced, and interpreted. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance.\n\n## 7.5 Management Policies\n\n### 7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP\n\nWhilst Kirribilli House and Garden remains a Commonwealth property, this HMP must be reviewed at least once every five years in accordance with Section 341X (1) of the EPBC Act. The review should assess the content of the plan and determine its effectiveness in protecting the heritage values of the place and make recommendations for updating or re-writing the plan as required. The review is to be undertaken with assistance from a heritage specialist and be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and Regulations for the review of management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places. The review is to focus on amending responsibilities, include commentary on any works undertaken since the last HMP review, and consider any changes or planned changes of use.\n\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | The conservation policies set out in this plan should be adopted by PM&C and implementedRelevant policies should be cross referenced to other management documentsA copy of the HMP should be retained on siteThis HMP must be updated every five years by PM&C with the assistance of a heritage specialist to ensure it remains relevant to the use of Kirribilli House and Garden and to ensure statutory compliance is maintainedThis HMP should also be updated after any significant changes to the site have occurred. At a minimum, the review must:Assess whether the plan is consistent with the Commonwealth Heritage management principles in force at the timeAssess whether the plan is effective in protecting and conserving the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenMake recommendations for the improved protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenThe listed Commonwealth Heritage values will be monitored, reviewed and reported on annually as part of the PM&C Annual Reporting Cycle. This information will be provided to DCCEEW every three years, as outlined in the PM&C Heritage Strategy. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth asset on Commonwealth land within NSW, managed by PM&C. If the asset leaves Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), ongoing heritage protection would be required under S341ZE of the EPBC Act. An update and revision of this HMP would then be required to accurately consider and reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements.\n\nResponsibility for undertaking the review of the HMP should fall to the new owner and should be undertaken within six months of the sale, and/or prior to the undertaking of any changes to Kirribilli House and Garden. To ensure that this requirement is recognised by the new owner it should form part of the sale/transfer documents between PM&C and the new owner.\n\nUnder S341ZE of the EPBC Act, PM&C must notify the Minister of the proposed divestment and establish an appropriate mechanism to protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place during the sale/transfer process and after the property has left Commonwealth control (such as a covenant \nin the sale/transfer documents, or equivalent arrangements).\n\nA copy of the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment as NSW heritage legislation would apply in the absence of Commonwealth ownership. The heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden should therefore be nominated by PM&C for formal protection under the NSW heritage system in the event of divestment.\n\nConsultation with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment will be necessary at least 12 months prior to the property leaving Commonwealth ownership, to ensure the appropriate nominations are in place to provide ongoing heritage protection. PM&C should also consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and submit the consultation outcomes to Heritage NSW.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been assessed as having outstanding heritage values and thus potentially reaching the threshold for inclusion on the NHL. Along with inclusion on the NSW SHR, a NHL listing would provide an additional layer of protection of the heritage values of the site. It is recommended that the site should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL.\n\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C must notify the Minister responsible for heritage of the intention to divest or lease the site, in accordance with the timeframes specified under S341ZE of the EPBC ActThis HMP should be reviewed to reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements. The HMP should be updated within six months of a Change of Ownership or Lease agreementIf the site is to leave Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and EnvironmentConsultation should occur with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the consultation outcomes submitted to Heritage NSWKirribilli House and Garden should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL and NSW SHR. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades\n\nThis HMP was prepared using a range of expert advice. For successful long-term interpretation and implementation of this Plan, continuity of competent advice is important to avoid implications from \nill-advised decisions.\n\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | Persons with suitable expertise and experience in conservation projects should be engaged for the resolution of conservation issues, as well as for input into the design and administration of conservation work on the place. Expert persons may include heritage architects, heritage landscape architects, heritage consultants, traditional (stone/slate/plaster) material contractors and arborists. |\n| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.4 Training and resources\n\nOccupants, staff, managers and contractors should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. Contractors should be given a copy of the Heritage Induction Training Manual provided in Appendix P.\n\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | All personnel on site should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and GardenA copy of the Heritage Induction Training Materials should be provided to contractors undertaking works on site. |\n| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities\n\nOwnership and property management of Kirribilli House and Garden including heritage management and Capital Works is managed by PM&C HOST. Other stakeholder management roles and responsibilities are set out in Section 1.6.\n\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders should be familiar with the roles and responsibilities of each agency. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping\n\nWorks undertaken to modify elements of Kirribilli House and Garden need to be approved by PM&C. Works may include:\n\n- determining if EPBC Act referral is necessary\n- determining if a HIA is required for proposed works\n- design works referencing the HMP\n- engaging a specialist to provide advice and undertake the submission of the draft HIA\n- undertaking EPBC Act self-assessment\n- undertaking consultation with DCCEEW\n- undertaking the attainment of approvals\n- commencement of works\n- documentation of the works.\n\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | All works that are the responsibility of PM&C shall be in accordance with the PM&C approval process included in HOW TO: Procurement Address Heritage Considerations (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023)Implementation of policies and works should be recorded by PM&C and records shall be maintained in the ShareHub systemDetails of day to day property maintenance will be kept by JLL with regular reports provided to PM&C filing on its ShareHub system. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.7 Legislative approvals process\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth property and hence must be managed in accordance with Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations (see Table 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist) and the policies in this HMP. If proposed works are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, approval must be sought through the EPBC Act referral process. The first step in assessing the impact of any proposed works is to prepare a self-assessment, in the format of a Heritage Impact Assessment. This should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist. If the self-assessment finds the action will or might have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage listed values, the action will need to be referred to the Minister for Environment and Water in accordance with Sections 26 and 29 of the EPBC Act. Advice can be sought from DCCEEW on this process and any potential actions. Any proposed works should consider alternatives to minimise impacts to heritage values.\n\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | Kirribilli House and Garden must be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles set out in Schedule 7B of the EPBC RegulationsConsultation should be undertaken early on EPBC Act referrals with DCCEEW heritageApproval should be sought through the EPBC referral processConsideration should be given to alternatives to minimise heritage impacts. |\n| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance\n\nIf compliance with the NCC and DDA to meet health, safety and energy efficiency requirements are likely to have a substantial impact on significant fabric or heritage values. Alternative engineered solutions that minimise impacts should be considered and promoted.\n\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | Compliance with the NCC or DDA should focus on responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect the significance. An alternative engineered solution may need to be sought if deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot be met. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to code compliance should be avoided. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.9 Safety\n\nKirribilli House is required to meet current safety standards as both a workplace and as a building. Measures should be taken to balance the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place with these safety obligations. All buildings and workplaces are required to meet various safety codes, including Kirribilli House. As a workplace, PM&C, with staff at the property, are required to ensure a safe work environment at all times and they must ensure that all incumbents and their families, as well as staff and visitors to the property are aware of any safety risks.\n\n| Policy 9. Safety | PM&C should aim to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code Australia (BCA) when they apply. Any strategies or solutions to make Kirribilli House comply with the BCA requirements should balance the cultural significance of the place with the objectives of the BCA. If conflict occurs, external heritage and architectural advice may be requiredWorks that improve the health and safety of the property are necessary, however they should be planned and designed ina sympathetic manner, so they do not negatively impact the Commonwealth Heritage values of the placeShould there be a conflict between the provision of safety measures and the protection of heritage fabric, safety should be the overriding factor which determines the measures necessaryAlternative solutions and compromises should be pursued wherever possible so that a solution is designed which meets both safety and heritage considerationsIt should be noted however, that whilst the BCA does not affect these items retrospectively, WH&S compliance is a current legislative obligationAn asbestos management plan should be implemented for any remaining asbestos. |\n| ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability\n\nAccess for people with a disability is currently inadequate. Although the DDA is not prescriptive, \nit would be best practice for Kirribilli House to have a policy for providing dignified and easy access. The DDA makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their disability. It is not specifically about buildings, however it has an effect on buildings in which the design and construction prevents access by people with a disability; as the owners of those buildings can be deemed to be discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.\n\n| Policy 10. Access for people with a disability | The following procedure should be applied when considering changes to heritage buildingsReview the significance of the place and identify the elements of greatest significanceUndertake an Access Audit to determine existing and required levels of accessibility; noting that some areas are exempt under the NCCEvaluate access options within a Commonwealth Heritage context. This process includes consultation with authorities and approval of the proposed actionPrepare the access policy or action planImplement the necessary action. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.11 Planning and coordination\n\nProposing ad-hoc changes can have an adverse impact on the significant values of the place. \nOver time, when these ad-hoc measures are undertaken independently, without coordination, \nplanning or expert advice, they can result in compounding adverse impact on the values of the place.\n\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | A coordinated and planned approach is necessary when proposing changes to Kirribilli House and GardenThe proposed activity should be reviewed within a holistic management framework to avoid adverse impacts resulting fromad-hoc measures. |\n| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation\n\nEarly consultation with stakeholders is required to comply with the EPBC Regulations when managing heritage places. The EPBC Act requires public notification of a HMP. This consultation process may be undertaken once a final HMP is available. In accordance with the referral assessment process under the EPBC Act, any proposed action that will impact on the heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden must also be notified for public comment.\n\nWhilst works proposed to Kirribilli House do not need to comply with local planning requirements, \nif significant works are proposed, it is recommended that North Sydney Council be informed.\n\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | Relevant stakeholder consultation should be undertaken early as part of managing the heritage place, allowing sufficient time for input in accordance with the EPBC ActThe HMP must be available for public notificationAny proposed action that impacts the heritage values of Kirribilli House must be notified for public commentIf substantial works are proposed, North Sydney Council should be informed as a good neighbour policy. |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\nPlease note that as per Section 1.8.1, public notification and exhibition of the draft HMP were carried out in 2023, prior to the finalisation of this document.\n\n \n\n## 7.6 Security\n\n### 7.6.1 Security and privacy\n\nManagement of Kirribilli House and Garden requires a high level of security and privacy.\n\n| Policy 13. Security and privacy | Elements of this HMP will be made available to government departments and external stakeholders on a need-to-know basisSections of the Heritage Induction Training Manual shall be made available to relevant contractors working on the site (see Appendix P) |\n| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.6.2 Security Infrastructure\n\nHome Affairs are responsible for the security infrastructure at Kirribilli House. The Australian Federal Police provide 24-hour physical security for the site. Extenuating circumstances may result in the disturbance of heritage fabric. The security of the property and the people within it will always outweigh any other requirements.\n\n| Policy 14. Security Infrastructure | Security requirements at Kirribilli House are fundamentally important for the safety and functionality of the house and those who work/live thereInterior security measures, such as distress buttons, are a high security priority. For security reasons they need to be placed in prominent, easily reached locations within the rooms, however whenever possible they should not be inserted into significant fabricWhile security is an essential operational requirement, any changes should be implemented in a way that minimises heritage impact where possible. |\n| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n## 7.7 Site-wide policies\n\n### 7.7.1 Conservation principles\n\nThe Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, known as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013), \nis 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. \nThere are seven principles that guide the care of heritage places:\n\n1\\. The place itself is important\n\n2\\. Understand the significance of the place\n\n3\\. Understand the fabric\n\n4\\. Significance should guide decisions\n\n5\\. Do as much as necessary, as little as possible\n\n6\\. Keep records\n\n7\\. Do everything in a logical order.\n\nThe use of the terms, conservation, preservation, reconstruction, adaptation, fabric, maintenance, repair, and compatible use in this report are defined in The Burra Charter.\n\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | Future work on the complex should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and its GuidelinesThe Commonwealth heritage values of the place should be the basis for all future planning and development. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.2 Setting\n\nThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting is a key contributory element to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden and its landmark qualities. The site is part of a continued landscape that includes Admiralty House on Kirribilli Point. Having met CHL Criterion B, D and E that relates to the setting of the place, it is crucial that the policy below be adopted to protect and maintain the CHL values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 16. Setting | The landmark qualities of Kirribilli House and Garden should be retained and protectedThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting should be retained, protected and promoted. This includes such key elements as the Victorian picturesque qualities (sweeping lawn, meandering paths, dramatic views and wild character), topography, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, harbour views and access to waterwayRetain and protect the continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. |\n| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.3 Streetscape\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to Kirribilli Conservation Area, which has been characterised by a mix of small, medium and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and contemporary residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | Kirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to the Kirribilli Conservation Area, hence contributory elements, including Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture, principal elevations, established garden, integration to topography and homogeneous scale, should all be retained and protected. |\n| ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.4 Significant views\n\nKirribilli House within Kirribilli Point forms part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape which is appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from Sydney Opera House, Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point and distant views from Bradley’s Head.\n\nThere is a harmonious relationship between the house, garden and the wider landscape which is the harbour setting. The site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden which include panoramas, framed and filtered views. This contributes to the picturesque setting and is part of the early planning of the site that evidence the key period of significance. Significant views identified have been included in Section 3.2.1 and 3.6 and are defined in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.\n\nFigure 7‑2.\n\n| Policy 18. Significant views | Significant views to and from Kirribilli House and Garden should be maintained and protectedThese include but are not limited to those identified in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.Figure 7‑2. |\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of the harbour near Kirribilli House outlining the significant views](image.178.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑1: Significant views to Kirribilli House from various vantage points of Sydney Harbour (maps.six.nsw.gov.au\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of Kirribilli House grounds highlighting the significant views seen from the property](image.179.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑2: Significant views from Kirribilli House and Garden (maps.six.nsw.gov.au)\n\n### 7.7.5 Heritage curtilage\n\nKirribilli House retains its original physical curtilage which is defined by the existing site boundary. \nThe site has maintained the early subdivision from Admiralty House estate and sold in 1854 to \nAdolph Feez who built the house in 1856. The earliest access to the site is likely to have been from the harbour and the earliest plans included boat access on the eastern boundary. The earliest plans also show access from Kirribilli Avenue.\n\nA visual curtilage can be extended to include vistas from the harbour and beyond from various vantage points.\n\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | The physical curtilage defined by the existing site boundary including access to the foreshore and Kirribilli Avenue should be retained and protectedA visual curtilage that includes vantage points of Kirribilli House and Garden from the harbourside should be retained protected. |\n| ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.6 Masterplans\n\nKirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House are major elements of Kirribilli Point that form part of the continuous Sydney Harbour landscape. There are both built and natural elements from both sites that are historically significant which should be preserved and promoted. Developing a masterplan will assist in identifying areas for future development, planning and maintenance of the site and minimise any detrimental effects from ad-hoc activities.\n\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | When opportunity presents, undertake one masterplan for Kirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House to guide future works. Include a study of the historical development of the site architectural style, massing, geometry/axis, vistas, and circulation (vehicular/pedestrian) studies. The plan should include a review of existing infrastructure/services and develop a site wide methodology for implementing new work. The plan should identify areas of future development including scale, height, massing and materials for potential future development. The masterplan should include a landscape masterplan that incorporates both sites as one landscape element of Kirribilli PointWhen opportunity presents, provide a detailed and updated version of the current Landscape Management Plan for Kirribilli House(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) to include the heritage significance of areas of the garden, identify specific historic elements relating to significance, consolidate information fromGeoff Britton’s landscape assessment (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H) and the AECOM Tree Survey, 2023Using the above information, compile a detailed landscape design for the garden with clear heritage and design principles for each garden areaThe landscape masterplan/updated Landscape Management Plan should study water drainage and succession planting to re-establish the lost tree canopies. It should also identify plant species on site that have high water consumption and propose alternative sub-species (whilst retaining the heritage values) that are more resilient. It should also consider reducing the ongoing erosion of the sandstone cliffA qualified heritage architect, heritage landscape architect and relevant service consultants should be engaged to undertake this workThis HMP should be updated in the next review to include findings from the masterplan and the updated Landscape Management Plan. |\n| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.7 Grounds generally\n\nThe garden at Kirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Vestiges of the pre-European landscape, Phase 1 –19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the grounds generally.\n\n| Policy 21. Grounds generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:- Vestiges of the pre-European landscape evidenced in the indigenous vegetation, rock outcrops, and sandstone cliffs, reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline- Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of thePeople-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque qualities, sweeping lawn, meandering stone paths, terracing, dry stone walling, fencing, dramatic views(panoramic, framed and filtered) and floristic (leaf form, colour, and texture).- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the plantings associated with significant people- Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the instruction of terracing, steps, trees, and plants (exotic and native)Retain a high quality of garden maintenance by engaging trade professionals with proven experience in horticulture, garden maintenance and heritage gardensEngage arborists as required to manage the health and safety of older treesPrior to removal and pruning of trees consider impacts to significant views (panoramas, framed and filtered)Do not introduce new structures in the garden except for temporary structures such as marquees and climbing framesDo not introduce new garden beds or new species of plants to the site unless implemented by a landscape masterplan or management planKeep a record of plants that have been part of memorials, functions, planted or gifted by dignitariesBuilt memorials should be avoided in the garden to retain the Victorian style and residential significance of the place. Australian artwork/sculptures may be incorporated if they are sympathetic to the significance of the placeOutdoor furniture, fixtures and fittings should be sympathetic of the heritage values of the place. Retain cast iron urns and sundialsRetain and repair as necessary the boundary fences to the sitePrior to implementing the Landscape Management Plan(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) for detailed works to hard and soft landscaping, resolve the inconsistencies of heritage landscape principles from Geoff Britton’s assessments updated information from AECOM’s Tree Survey 2023 through a landscape masterplan/detailed management plan or landscape design. |\n| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.8 House generally\n\nKirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 \n(Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the house generally.\n\n| Policy 22. House generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque setting, modest scale, irregular massing, steeply pitched gabled roofs with highly decorated bargeboards, prominent gable, gabled dormer, slate roof, textured masonry walling, bay windows, timber verandah and tall medieval looking chimneys, fireplaces, timber joinery- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the single storey addition (wet), bay window replacements to double hung window, gabled roof, and room to first floor, hallway widened, addition of bathrooms, garagePhase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the service wing, single storey additions to either side of porch, replacement of shutters, verandah infill for storeroom, timber valence reconstruction, security screens, eastern gable windows, main stair reconstruction, and conservation worksConserve and promote the relationship of the house to the garden such as verandahs and garden elementsRetain and protect the internal arrangement of spaces, inter-relationships of rooms and volumes of spacesRetain and conserve the hierarchy of public and private spacesThe house may be altered to suit the function as an Official Prime Minister’s Residence whilst respecting the heritage values of the placeNew work should not replicate previous styles but be of a contemporary style and sympathetic to the heritage values of the placeReconstruction works should be identifiable through subtle variation in detail and should be dated. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.9 Maintenance and repair\n\nSystematic maintenance will conserve significant fabric longer for the ultimate benefit of future generations. A site wide maintenance plan is provided in Section 8.0.\n\n| Policy 23. Maintenance | Implement the General Maintenance Plan included in this HMP in accordance with the policies contained in this HMPThe maintenance plan should be adopted by JLL under their contractual obligationsThe maintenance plan should be integrated into the PM&C asset maintenance processes. A Heritage Asset works/maintenance record should also be prepared and maintained for each activityPrior to undertaking any maintenance works, confirmed that the activity proposed is maintenance and complies with the policies an in this HMP. This should be confirmed by PM&CA dedicated budget should be implemented to guide on-going maintenance work on the significant elements identified in this HMPAdequate funding arrangements for maintenance and urgent repairs identified in this HMP should be put in placeIncrease rate of maintenance following inclement weather such as high winds and storms. Inspect all weatherproofing elements of the buildingsEnsure all contractors are made aware of the heritage values of the place by providing the Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P) to all contractors on site.Undertake a structural condition assessment of the site every five years by a qualified structural engineer. |\n| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.10 Emergency Works\n\nEmergency works should always be undertaken as a priority, wherever possible they should seek to be completely reversible. Emergency works (such as rectifying storm damage, repairing water leaks or attending electrical malfunctions) are a necessary aspect of managing the maintenance, safety and condition of Kirribilli House. By their very nature, they often have to be undertaken quickly with little planning. If works occur (due to safety or security reasons) that are not sympathetic, such work should be ‘undone’ as soon as practicable.\n\n| Policy 24. Emergency Works | Emergency works must always be undertaken as quickly as possible.Any emergency works should be recorded by PM&C, with the issue, condition prior to repairs and condition after repairs (including photographs) recorded as a minimum.PM&C, as the agency responsible for contractors carrying out emergency works to the fixed building elements, should be notified as soon as possible to inspect the temporary repairs and decide on a more permanent solution.All emergency works should be reversible whenever possible. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience\n\nSustainable and resilient methods are required to manage the adverse effects of climate change. The skilled craftsmanship and composition of old materials result in heritage buildings that are durable. The re-use of existing buildings and fabric reduces the embodied energy required for new development. Hence, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings should be considered as a first measure before new development is considered. An energy audit/thermal assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden will identify areas energy expenditure.\n\nThe Australian Public Service (APS) must comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy. APS Net Zero will be achieved by actively reducing emissions from APS operations as well as through offsets. This initiative will also encourage transparency by requiring Commonwealth entities to publicly report on their emissions, whilst supporting the uplift of climate capability across the APS.\n\nExtreme weather patterns in the future mean that there will be periods of extreme drought and wet weather as well as erratic events and increased climate induced disasters. Environmental factors specific to Kirribilli House and Garden in the future include:\n\n- Increase in ambient humidity levels and condensation within buildings leading to mould and damp\n- Dry weather patterns creating shrinking of fabric and cracks to structure\n- Intense rainfalls and storms causing inefficient water drainage from buildings and areas of the garden, damage to property\n- Long periods of rain\n- The existing rising damp conditions to worsen.\n\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience(a) Assessments/audits | Comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy.Should the opportunity arise, undertake the following assessments/audits:- Undertake an initial and periodic energy, water and thermal comfort assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden to identify areas of deficiencies, ideally over a year (to account for season)- Assess the existing ventilation in buildings and implement methods of improvement to minimise humidity in buildings e.g., sub floor ventilation- Assess rain and surface water runoff across the whole site and in buildings. This may include installing sensors to measure ground moisture. Implement improvements especially during torrential rainfall events- Assess the viability of measures to reduce water and energy consumption in the garden (additional rainwater tanks, automatic watering, solar powered garden lights, drought tolerant plants and grasses). |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (b) Implementation | Implement low impact measures sympathetic to heritage values such as upgrades to fittings and fixtures (e.g., light fittings, water closets, taps) and services (air conditioning units, gas fireplaces)Increase the rate of maintenance to existing buildings during periods of extreme weather eventsPromote adaptive reuse of buildings. Demonstrate and exhaust all other measures to ensure existing buildings are used efficiently prior to constructing new buildings and structuresSolar panels should be avoided on the main house structure to avoid impact on significant views of the house. Solar panels may be installed on the laundry building if an HIA has determined that physical and visual impacts are minimal. The works will require permission from OOSGGNew work/developments should incorporate sustainable design and construction methodsUndertake any catch-up maintenance activities. Ensure that cyclical maintenance and emergency maintenance are activated immediately. |\n| (c) Management plans | Develop a Sustainability Action Plan for the site and include all sustainability measures. Include a risk register and identify risks to heritage elements including loss of heritage significant plant species, loss of lawns, property damage from high winds, erosion impact to garden, risk to heritage fabric from damage, increase in pests and diseases in garden. Include measures to educate staff, contractors on creating an awareness of sustainability issues.Develop and implement a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the site that identifies potential risks to the site and its heritage values to prepare Kirribilli House and Garden for future events. This plan should identify elements of the site that maybe sacrificial losses. |\n\n### 7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management\n\nIt is recognised that Kirribilli House and Garden is located within a larger cultural landscape of high social, cultural, and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples and will apply a precautionary approach to the management of heritage values.\n\n| Policy 26. General | The overarching aim for the management of the Indigenous heritage values should be done in partnership with Indigenous stakeholders.Consider the preparation of an interpretation strategy covering intangible Indigenous heritage values in the context of the broader intangible cultural landscape. This should be undertaken with Indigenous consultation.Indigenous stakeholders should be consulted regarding any potential impacts if any Indigenous heritage values are identified in relation to Kirribilli House and Garden. Consultation, in all instances, should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Ask First Guidelines.Should a plan be formulated for the management of the garden, there may be an opportunity for consideration to be given to Indigenous plantings to be added to the existing landscape, to allow for interpretation of the history of the location. Such a garden plan should be guided by the findings of the interpretation strategy and the consultation outcomes of the intangible cultural landscape values. |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nPrior to commencement of any new development activities/works within Kirribilli House and Garden, all relevant site personnel and contractors should be made aware of Indigenous heritage values. The discovery of unexpected Indigenous heritage should trigger ”Stop Works” as detailed in Policy 27.\n\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | Unexpected Indigenous Heritage Finds Procedure (excluding human skeletal remains)1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the artefact/site must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing).2. Notification - The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management about the discovery and seek advice.3. Impact Assessment - If required, undertake an assessment for the proposed activity/works in accordance with relevant heritage guidelines.4. Impact Mitigation - Implement management actions detailed in the assessment.5. Reporting - Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the new site and any implemented management actions.Unexpected Human Skeletal Remains Procedure - For any confirmed or suspected human skeletal remains, the following procedure should be followed:1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the remains must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing). The remains must not be left unattended.2. Notification: The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management of the discovery. They, in turn, must notify the Coroner’s Office and the Military Police, who will notify appropriate local authorities. If it is confirmed by these authorities that the remains are Indigenous Ancestral Remains, they should, as soon as practicable, report the existence of the remains to Indigenous stakeholders and relevant State-based heritage authorities.3. Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Management should consult with Indigenous stakeholders and an appropriately experienced and qualified heritage consultant. In general, the first management option should be avoidance of the location. If this is not possible, then relocation of the remains to a designated keeping place, or reburial at a location near to the original (but within an area that will not be impacted) should be undertaken. The wishes of the Indigenous stakeholders should guide these actions. The excavation and handling of any Indigenous skeletal remains should follow best practice scientific guidelines (e.g., NSW Heritage Office, 1998).4. GEMS Update:- Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the remains and implemented management actions. |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nConsider the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process, acknowledging security and safety constraints.\n\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | Kirribilli House and Garden is an active, high security area with access needing to be arranged in advance through appropriate personnel, with all visitors subject to security clearance and induction processes. Existing security and induction procedures notwithstanding, should Indigenous values be identified in the future, the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process should then be developed, which could potentially provide approval for on-site cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies. In general, should any interested Indigenous community members wish to enter for cultural reasons, they should contact the appropriate management contact who should facilitate the visit. |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nIndigenous stakeholders should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any public disclosures pertaining to the Indigenous heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | The investigation of intangible Indigenous cultural heritage values, and in the event that finds occur during future works, may result in the identification of Indigenous values relating to Kirribilli House and Garden. Should information regarding such Indigenous heritage values be proposed for release into the public domain, Indigenous stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on any disclosures prior to their release. All comments received should be considered and inform the final disseminated disclosure. |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.13 Services\n\nThe insertion of any new services should be carefully considered and consider the original structure and fabric of the heritage buildings to minimise impact.\n\n| Policy 30. Services | Services should be minimised in their extent and carefully planned to minimise damage to significant fabricNew, replacement and upgraded services should use existing conduits and ducts wherever possibleCeiling-mounted fittings, such as detectors and light fittings with minimal fixings are recommendedSurface-mounted vertical risers are permitted, provided their style and finish is compatible with the cultural significance of the space through which they pass. Wherever possible, vertical risers should be in minor spaces of least cultural significanceLight fittings and electrical accessories (switch plates, GPOs) should not be period reproductions but discrete modern fixturesAir-conditioning units should be discreet in location and appearance. Any associated works should be positioned to avoid damage to significant fabricExternal air-conditioning units should be concealed from view, not located on the front façade of the building, and positioned to avoid damage to significant external fabric. |\n| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring\n\nAreas of high archaeological potential have been identified at the subject site. If excavation is proposed in these areas, further investigation by a suitably qualified archaeologist would be required prior to commencement of works.\n\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | Any excavation in areas of high archaeological potential should be carried out under archaeological supervision by a qualified archaeologistIf underfloor deposits are planned to be removed, engage an archaeologist to remove and assess to determine the presence of any artefactsIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, implement an unexpected finds procedure must be followed (see Figure 4‑27). |\n| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.15 Carparking and circulation\n\nThe site has limited potential for incorporating carparking and vehicular access without impacting on the garden setting of the site. The driveway loop originates from the Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 \n(Official Residence of the Prime Minister) and is graded as an item of moderate significance, \nhence may be modified for future requirements.\n\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | An increase to the number of carparking spaces currently provided is not recommended i.e., spaces for permanent garaged vehicles and informal parking of cars on drivewayThe driveway loop may be modified for future carparking and vehicular access but must have little to no impact on the garden setting. |\n| ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.16 Public access\n\nThere is limited public access due to security and privacy reasons. However, the site holds many functions where large number of people can attend the site at any one time. Open days of the house and garden are also held. It is important that the heritage significance of the site is communicated, and significant fabric is protected during these times by implementing a Visitor Management Strategy.\n\n| Policy 33. Public access | Undertake and implement a Visitor Management Strategy for the site.Public open days should occur every year however the level at which the property is open to the public should be decided in conjunction with the incumbentsAt a minimum the grounds should be open for inspection during open daysCare should be taken to protect artworks and furniture during open daysInterpretative materials should be available on the day |\n| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.17 Archival recording\n\nAn archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved for removal should be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage specialist in accordance with the Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, \nrevised 2006) guideline. The record should aim to capture the item prior to, during and after the proposed works. A copy of the archival record be provided to the local council and the NLA.\n\nCurrently there are several sites that hold vast amount of historical information relating to the site including, State Records, NLA, State Library of NSW, Stanton Library and PM&C. This information should be consolidated, and a central repository of information should be established.\n\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | Undertake an archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved to be demolished. The works should comply with Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, revised 2006) guidelineProvide a copy of the archival record to PM&C, council and NLA(with redacted information on security)Establish a central repository of information of historical data. |\n| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.18 Movable items\n\nThere are several movable items associated with Kirribilli House and Garden. These include a wide variety of furniture, art and memorabilia predominantly lent and managed by the Australian Fund (see detailed identification, care and management set out in the catalogue by Australian Fund, The Australian Fund, 2022). Additional items found on site should be assessed and recorded by suitably qualified persons and conserved on site or protected in off-site storage.\n\n| Policy 35. Movable items | The existing management practice and collaboration with Australian Fund and PM&C should continueIf additional moveable items are found, they should be identified and assessed by a suitably qualified person and conserved on site, or protected in an off-site storage facilityMovable items should be assessed for suitability for incorporation in an Interpretation Plan for the site. |\n| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.19 Heritage interpretation\n\nThere is an opportunity for the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden to be promoted to the public by undertaking an Interpretation Strategy. The strategy should be prepared by a heritage consultant and appropriately funded. This strategy should include consideration of security and safety requirements whilst communicating the heritage significance of the site.\n\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | An Interpretation Strategy should be prepared for Kirribilli House and Garden by a suitably qualified heritage consultantThe Interpretation Strategy should consider privacy, safety, and security requirements of the siteConsider the use of wide range of media, digital, paper, physical (signage, fabric) and sensory elements (e.g., textured materials in the garden and soundscapes)Include associations with significant people for the house as well as the garden (include signage adjacent to significant plants).Consider displaying historic photographsIncorporate any oral histories (e.g., descendants of the Feez family, former Prime Ministers)Include Indigenous heritage values and consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal parties.If there is an opportunity, undertake an Indigenous Intangible Cultural Values study and to incorporate reference to Indigenous past in the garden through a cohesive approach.An Indigenous Interpretation Strategy may be prepared as a separate documentCreate a unified and consistent style, sympathetic to the heritage aesthetic of the site, for interpretation of the site e.g., style of fonts and colours for signs. |\n| ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.20 Signage and external lighting\n\nThere is limited signage on site that is in keeping with the residential character of the site. There is also a mixture of light fittings in the house and garden with majority of fittings originating from the 1957 modifications and some reproduced Victorian lamps.\n\nSignage and external lighting can add to the character of the site. Signage and lighting should not adversely affect the significant heritage fabric and overall character of the site. When installing signage, the fixings should be reversible and not damage significant fabric.\n\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | Should the opportunity, arise develop a complex-wide signage and external lighting plan for the site.Signage and lighting should be in harmony with the historic character of the site and compliant with current Australian health and safety standardsFree standing signage systems should be used for major directional signs, with smaller signs applied to selected areas with a minimum of fixingsSigns should not be attached to the brickwork walls of the buildingsIf the opportunity arises, a lighting designer or architect should be engaged to undertake a site wide study of existing lighting to the house and garden, and propose a lighting plan that is a contemporary design and sympathetic to the heritage values of the siteIncorporate sustainable lighting practices. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.8 Contributory elements\n\nContributory elements (tangible and intangible) to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden have been identified in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements. \nThese elements are essential to the significance of the place and should be conserved according to the following policies.\n\n| Policy 38 | |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (1) Curtilage | See policy 7.7.5. |\n| (2) Relationship to Admiralty House | Conserve and protect views to Admiralty House and key elements within its gardenRetain the existing access points at the western boundary. |\n| (3) Views and vistas to Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (4) Views and vistas from Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (5) Pre-European vestiges | Retain and protect features of the pre-European landscape including, plantings, rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs. |\n| (6) Entrance gates, stone walls, and fences | Retain and conserve stone walls and wrought iron gates.Consider replacing the side entry gate to an interpreted detail of the early gate from 1913 (Figure 5-11Figure 5‑6)Fencing to the northern boundary may be altered to interpret earlier detailsThe fencing along the boundary to Admiralty House may be altered to a more open style of fence to interpret the connection between the two sites. |\n\n \n\n| (7) Driveway, driveway loop and entrance forecourt | An entry precinct that is grand and in keeping with the Victorian themed garden style should be retainedPlant species should be sourced from available archival sources of the Victorian eraThe entry drive should not be increased in area for future useAn updated Landscape Management Plan should review the significance of the species of camellias to confirm their association with the work of Professor E G WaterhouseA Landscape Management Plan should seek to undertake further research and gain expert opinion are required to confirm appropriateness of the Jacaranda trees on the site. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (8) Upper eastern grassed banks and terraces | The steep grassed banks should be retained and existing view preserved. |\n| (9) Lower eastern lawn terrace and eastern walk | The steep grassed banks of the lower terrace should be retained as an open space permitting views to the harbour and views to the house from the harbourPlantings to the south should be consistent with the Victorian eraOpportunities for reinstating Indigenous vegetation should be investigated. |\n| (10) Northeast gardens and walks | The sandstone outcrops should be retained and not concealedThe meandering paths should be retainedPlantings should be appropriate to the Victorian era and should also address loss of privacy to the northern boundary from tree lossThe poorly executed sandstone paving on north-eastern and lower grounds should be reviewed. |\n| (11) Northeastern terrace | The stone wall and paving should be reconstructed with a rustic theme, providing a focus for the existing rock outcropCourses should follow the horizontal bias with no vertical elementsPlantings should be consistent with the Victorian era, promote Indigenous vegetation, provide privacy, and retain filtered views. |\n| (12) Clifftop garden | The wild character of the garden should be retained without impeding on viewsThe safety aspects of the garden should be reviewedIndigenous vegetation should be promoted. |\n| (13) Foreshore and cliffs | The foreshore and cliff line with sandstone face should be retainedIndigenous plantings should be promotedSafety and design of the access pathways that lead to the boat harbour and bathing pool below should be reviewed. |\n| (14) Harbourside ruins | The boat harbour, bathing pool, boatsheds and retaining walls should be retained and conservedAn archival record of existing structures should be undertakenFurther physical studies of this area should be undertakenExisting retaining walls should be stabilised |\n| (15) Southern lawn terrace and rockeries | The stone flagged areas, rockeries, and terraces should be retained and conservedThe steel pipe handrail should be upgraded to comply with current access codes. |\n| (16) Western garden including hedged lawn and kitchen garden | The hedged lawn and kitchen garden should be retained and conserved |\n| (17) Paths and stairs | Existing paths and stairs should be retainedA landscape masterplan should study existing paths and stairs and propose a plan considering hierarchy of paths, detailing of edging, consolidation, and cohesive palette of materialsrandom stone paving to lower areas should be removed and replaced with bitumenThe drainage of paths away from the building line should be ensured |\n| (18) Significant trees | All significant trees and plants identified in this HMP and Landscape Management Plan should be retained and protected.A program for succession of identified plantings should be undertaken, particularly to address loss of tree canopy and privacy along Kirribilli Avenue. |\n| (19) Victorian Rustic Gothic style features | The stylistic features of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture should be retained, protected and conserved. |\n| (20) North elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe entry porch in its current configuration should be retained. Steps may be altered but should remain symmetrical to the porchDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (21) East elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in its current configuration should be retained, including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (22) South elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in current configuration should be retained including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to nineteenth century wallsThe timber storeroom may be removed, and the original verandah may be reinstated. |\n| (23) West elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedRoom and gabled roof over the northwest corner of building should be retainedSingle storey parapet wing may be removed or alteredThe service wing may be removed or alteredThe awning entry may be removed or alteredDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (24) Roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods | The roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods should be retained and conservedIf required install, safety anchors on internal slopes. |\n| (25) Masonry walls | Masonry walls and associated elements should be retained and conservedRepairs and conservation work to masonry walls should follow traditional repair methodsDo not use cement render on pre-1950s wallsPaint finish should be retained. |\n| (26) Verandah | The verandah and associated elements should be retained and conservedDo not infill any part of the verandahStoreroom/infill to verandah may be retained or removedFuture replacement of roof should be corrugated copper. |\n| (27) Entry porch including front doors | The entry porch and doors should be retained and conservedThe entry steps may be altered but the symmetry and stone fabric should be retainedThe front doors may be relocated to its original location. The doorframe and fanlight should be retainedStone flagging to interior may be replaced with unglazed tessellated tile. |\n| (28) Bay window including parapet and flat roof | The bay window and its elements should be retained and conserved |\n| (29) French doors | The French doors and associated elements including hardware should be retained and conservedReinstatement of the earlier narrow doors to eastern elevation is not requiredSteel security doors have been designed sympathetically to the doors and should be retainedDo not modify early doors to include double glazing. |\n| (30) Windows | The early casement windows, Gothic windows (porch) and multi-paned double hung windows should be retained and conservedAssociated elements including hardware should be retainedDo not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (31) Shutters | The early shutters (pre-1957) should be retained and conservedShutters of later date may be removed or modified.Do not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (32) Post 1950s additions | Additions may be retained or demolishedIf removed, the original details of the walls should be reinstated. |\n| (33) Service wing | Service wing may be retained or demolished. |\n| (34) Entry hall including Entry lobby | The entry hall and lobby in its current configuration should be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (35) Drawing room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating original wall between roomsSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (36) Dining room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating the opening size between dining and drawing roomSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (37) Prime Minister’s study | Should be retained in its current configurationThe glass doors to the east may be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (38) Green room | Should be retained in its current configurationShelving to either side of fireplace may be altered or removed and former door in this area may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (39) Hallways and stairs | Should be retained in its current configurationThe narrow hall should not be reinstated at ground floorSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (40) Family room | Should be retained in its current configurationSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (41) Bedrooms | Should be retained in its current configurationFireplace may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved. |\n| (42) Bathrooms | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (43) Spaces in service wing | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (44) Internal joinery, including doors, architraves, and skirtings | All pre-1950s joinery should be retained and conserved in situ to reflect the different periods of developmentWhere joinery is polished, polish finish should be retained and not painted overConservation works should consider reinstating the polished/grained finish to early joinery. |\n| (45) Services | See 7.7.12 |\n| (46) Garage | The garage may be altered internally. |\n| (47) Guard house | The meandering paths should be retainedThe guard house may be altered or demolished. |\n| (48) Storeroom | The storeroom may be altered or demolished. |\n| (49) Moveable items | See 7.7.18 |\n\n## 7.9 New work\n\n### 7.9.1 Adaptive re-use\n\nKirribilli House and Garden was constructed as a residence in 1856 and used as a residence during the key period of significance Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920. The site has continued its residential function when it became the Official Sydney Residence of the Prime Minister in 1957, hence the current use is consistent with the historical significance of the site. The residential use is evidenced in the planning of the house and garden as well as its physical fabric.\n\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | The most compatible use for Kirribilli House and Garden is a residential useKirribilli House and Garden should be retained as an Official Sydney Establishment of the Prime Minister and its ownership continued by the CommonwealthBefore considering adaptive re-use an assessment should be made of the compatibility of new use to the site’s historical function, potential loss of associations with prime ministerial roles and potential impacts (physical and visual) on heritage significanceFuture adaptive reuse should also consider hierarchy of public and private use of parts of the site and where feasible allowing public access. |\n| ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.2 New development, additions and infills\n\nThe original house built in 1856 was located on the smoothed platform above the rock outcrop centred on the site. The house was extended to the west in the latter two phases. Minor infills and extension to the house have occurred also taken place during this time. Outbuildings were located as a garden structure on the central garden area, to the west of the site and harbourside structures to the eastern boundary. There is opportunity to restore the ruins of the harbourside structures. Modifications or replacement of the service wing from 1957 is possible. Elsewhere on the site, there is limited opportunity for development without potential impact to heritage significance. Any development of the laundry building which is owned by OOSG has potential to impact the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. There is additional opportunity for development if the site was consolidated with Admiralty House (investigated in Kirribilli House Master Plan Report (Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd, 1981). Opportunities should be considered through a new masterplan study.\n\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | There is minimal opportunity for new development, additions and infills at Kirribilli House and GardenUse of existing spaces should be maximised prior to considering alternatives to developAll other opportunities that have little or no impacts to heritage values should be exhausted prior to considering new developmentRestoration of the harbourside structures should be considered.There is opportunity to modify or replace the service wing from 1957New development should consider the existing architectural style, forms and masses and ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic and do not compete with the Rustic Victorian character of the placeNew work should adopt the principle of reversibility to mitigate potential impactsNew work should use high quality of materials |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is not a static house museum and it should continue to evolve with each incumbent as the requirements for its use change. Changes to the historical uses, however, should be carefully assessed for compatibility of spaces and only implemented once all other options have been investigated and discarded.\n\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | Change of use to spaces are permissibleAreas of low significance have high tolerance and flexibility for changesAreas of high significance have low tolerance and flexibility and compatible uses should be first considered before considering options. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.10 Conservation in accordance with significance\n\nMuch of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House is embodied in the physical fabric of the place. Section 5.4.1 of this HMP sets out the grading scale for significant elements ranging from those elements of exceptional significance down to those that are intrusive. It follows that conservation action should be related to an element’s relative level of significance. Grading of significant fabric in each element/building is included in 5.4.3 and guidelines for managing change are identified in Section 5.4.2.\n\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | Much of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House and Garden is embodied in the physical elements and fabric of the place. Conservation action should be related to the elements or fabric’s level of significanceAny repair, conservation or reconstruction works to significant elements or facades must be undertaken with appropriate direction by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, architect and/or relevant materials specialist/s or conservator and with reference to historical documentation. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n## 7.11 Conservation of Materials\n\n### 7.11.1 Traditional materials\n\nKirribilli House and Garden consists of several traditional materials including slate, lead, copper, sandstone, brick, cast iron and timber.\n\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | A heritage architect should be engaged to undertake works and provide advice on to traditional materialsWhen repairing or altering traditional materials, a qualified and experienced traditional trades contractor should be engaged to undertake the work or supervise the work. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.2 Reconstruction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has many details that are missing or have been undertaken in an inappropriate manner. When these works are proposed to be reconstructed, the work should be based on documentary evidence of an earlier state.\n\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | Reconstruction is appropriate only where an element is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the elementReconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection. |\n| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes\n\nWhen repainting, the choice of paint colours should be based on an understanding of original colours and finishes used – through documentary and analysis of physical evidence (e.g., paint scrapes). \nIf repainting is required, original colour schemes should be re-instated for significant elements. \nA colour palette and interior design advice was provided in the 2016 HMP and should be used to guide future works.\n\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | Refer to Kirribilli House – Colour Palette and Interior Design Heritage Advice, Appendix O. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods\n\nThere are areas of the site that have been inappropriately repaired or conserved. These include the cement mortar repairs to masonry and conservation works where details are exact replicas. \nWhen opportunity arises, undertake works to remedy areas. Works should be prioritised and only those items identified as intrusive should be modified.\n\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | When practical, previous inappropriate repair and conservation methods should be remedied with the use of traditional methods according to priority. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP\n\nThis HMP should be reviewed every five years and considered for full update every ten years or when large-scale changes are proposed that are not considered in this HMP. The implementation of the HMP should also be reviewed every five years.\n\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | This HMP should be reviewed every five years (or when large-scale changes are proposed that have not already been considered in this HMP)This HMP should be reviewed every ten years and considered for a full update.The implementation of the HMP should be reviewed every five years (assessing works priorities, if the HMP is actually implementing the policies and strategies, and the condition of the place and the condition of its listed Commonwealth Heritage values – see table below).These reviews should be documented as reports with findings and actions clearly documented, |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n```html\n

Commonwealth Heritage Values

Reporting and monitoring

Criterion A - Processes – Attributes: The fabric and form of the house

When reviews are undertaken on the effectiveness of the implementation of the HMP policies, these should be applied to the Commonwealth heritage values through a qualitative assessment of the retention of the attributes listed against each relevant criterion (A, B, D, E, G and H). The success in retaining these attributes and thus the associated values that reside in them should be documented as reports with clearly stated findings and actions.

Criterion B - Rarity – Attributes: The house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour

Criterion D - Characteristic values – Attributes: The building's form, its external styling and details, and its early and original fabric

Criterion E - Aesthetic characteristics – Attributes:

The architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour

Criterion G - Social value – Attributes: The house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days

Criterion H - Significant people – Attributes: The whole of the building, both internally and externally

\n```\n\n \n\n### 7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis\n\nA review of reports for the site has identified knowledge gaps. Opportunities should be sought for these to be addressed as part of future investigations and assessments.\n\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | Opportunities should be sought to fill the following knowledge gaps:The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysisAlthough there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be locatedDiscussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruinsDiscussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listedDemonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistasConfirmation of the position and detail of the original staircaseThe detail of the original front doorThe detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevationThe early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of StudyThe detail of the original verandahThe detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracketDetails of the original drawing room windowsThe early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and gratesThe detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbourDetails of original fencing and gates, |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n \n\n| Policy | Responsibility | Priority | Timing |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- |\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | PM&C to adopt and implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C to notify, review and consult | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | PM&C to engage appropriate experts | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | PM&C to induct | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | PM&C to manage | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 9:Saftey | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 10: Access for people with a disability | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | PM&C to plan and coordinate | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 13. Security | PM&C to provide | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 14 Security infrastructure | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 16. Setting | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 18. Significant views | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | PM&C to undertake | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 21-23. Grounds generally / House generally / Maintenance | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 24 Emergency works policy | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 26. General | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 30. Services | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | PM&C to engage appropriate specialists | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 33. Public access | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 35. Movable items | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | PM&C to develop | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 38. | PM&C to conserve and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-10 years |\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-5 years |\n\n## 7.12 Implementation plan\n\nThe following implementation plan should be utilised for the policies listed above.\n\n \n\n# 8.0 Maintenance Schedule\n\n## 8.1 Introduction\n\nRegular, on-going inspection and maintenance is vital to the longevity of heritage buildings and to preserve their heritage significance. The following section provides the required catch up maintenance, a cyclical inspection and maintenance schedule.\n\n## 8.2 Catch-up Maintenance\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been well maintained, resulting in a good overall condition. Conservation of the exterior stonework has been carried out within the last five years. A few catch-up maintenance items were noted. Cleaning of the exterior has been added to the maintenance schedule in Section 8.3.","sortOrder":174},{"sectionNumber":"7.9.1 Adaptive re-use","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.9.1 Adaptive re-use","content":"### 7.9.1 Adaptive re-use\n\nKirribilli House and Garden was constructed as a residence in 1856 and used as a residence during the key period of significance Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920. The site has continued its residential function when it became the Official Sydney Residence of the Prime Minister in 1957, hence the current use is consistent with the historical significance of the site. The residential use is evidenced in the planning of the house and garden as well as its physical fabric.\n\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | The most compatible use for Kirribilli House and Garden is a residential useKirribilli House and Garden should be retained as an Official Sydney Establishment of the Prime Minister and its ownership continued by the CommonwealthBefore considering adaptive re-use an assessment should be made of the compatibility of new use to the site’s historical function, potential loss of associations with prime ministerial roles and potential impacts (physical and visual) on heritage significanceFuture adaptive reuse should also consider hierarchy of public and private use of parts of the site and where feasible allowing public access. |\n| ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":175},{"sectionNumber":"7.9.2 New development, additions and inf","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.9.2 New development, additions and infills","content":"### 7.9.2 New development, additions and infills\n\nThe original house built in 1856 was located on the smoothed platform above the rock outcrop centred on the site. The house was extended to the west in the latter two phases. Minor infills and extension to the house have occurred also taken place during this time. Outbuildings were located as a garden structure on the central garden area, to the west of the site and harbourside structures to the eastern boundary. There is opportunity to restore the ruins of the harbourside structures. Modifications or replacement of the service wing from 1957 is possible. Elsewhere on the site, there is limited opportunity for development without potential impact to heritage significance. Any development of the laundry building which is owned by OOSG has potential to impact the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. There is additional opportunity for development if the site was consolidated with Admiralty House (investigated in Kirribilli House Master Plan Report (Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd, 1981). Opportunities should be considered through a new masterplan study.\n\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | There is minimal opportunity for new development, additions and infills at Kirribilli House and GardenUse of existing spaces should be maximised prior to considering alternatives to developAll other opportunities that have little or no impacts to heritage values should be exhausted prior to considering new developmentRestoration of the harbourside structures should be considered.There is opportunity to modify or replace the service wing from 1957New development should consider the existing architectural style, forms and masses and ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic and do not compete with the Rustic Victorian character of the placeNew work should adopt the principle of reversibility to mitigate potential impactsNew work should use high quality of materials |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":176},{"sectionNumber":"7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces","content":"### 7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is not a static house museum and it should continue to evolve with each incumbent as the requirements for its use change. Changes to the historical uses, however, should be carefully assessed for compatibility of spaces and only implemented once all other options have been investigated and discarded.\n\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | Change of use to spaces are permissibleAreas of low significance have high tolerance and flexibility for changesAreas of high significance have low tolerance and flexibility and compatible uses should be first considered before considering options. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":177},{"sectionNumber":"7.10","sectionType":"part","heading":"Conservation in accordance with significance","content":"## 7.10 Conservation in accordance with significance\n\nMuch of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House is embodied in the physical fabric of the place. Section 5.4.1 of this HMP sets out the grading scale for significant elements ranging from those elements of exceptional significance down to those that are intrusive. It follows that conservation action should be related to an element’s relative level of significance. Grading of significant fabric in each element/building is included in 5.4.3 and guidelines for managing change are identified in Section 5.4.2.\n\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | Much of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House and Garden is embodied in the physical elements and fabric of the place. Conservation action should be related to the elements or fabric’s level of significanceAny repair, conservation or reconstruction works to significant elements or facades must be undertaken with appropriate direction by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, architect and/or relevant materials specialist/s or conservator and with reference to historical documentation. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":178},{"sectionNumber":"7.11","sectionType":"part","heading":"Conservation of Materials","content":"# 7.0 Managing heritage values\n\n## 7.1 Objectives\n\nThis HMP sets out a structure to assist PM&C for the future management of Kirribilli House and Garden are to ensure the operational duties continue to be carried out, while protecting the identified heritage values and achieving EPBC Act compliance. For historic heritage, it is to conserve the heritage significance through retention of buildings, fabric and landscape elements of significance including the preservation of the historical layout.\n\n## 7.2 Opportunities and constraints\n\nOpportunities and constraints arising from the identified heritage significance of a place establish \na baseline from where other issues such as maintenance and owner requirements can be considered. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance and requirements under the CHL.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden displays a high degree of significance due to the following:\n\n As the Official Sydney residence of the Australian Prime Minister since 1957\n The site evidences the early land grants to prominent Sydney residents\n Association with early public campaign to protect harbourside development in the 1920s\n Association with Admiralty House and forming part of a continued landscape that is Kirribilli Point\n The site has rare qualities as a surviving Victorian Rustic Gothic residence in a harbour setting and includes the remains of one of the earliest bathing pools on Sydney Harbour\n The site has representative values for its Victorian Rustic Gothic style of house and garden and\n The site is important to the people of Australia and is associated with various prime ministers, dignitaries, and significant people in the community.\n\nOpportunities arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Maintain a high quality of care and management of the site\n Interpreting the heritage values of the site including the different phases of development\n Presenting a cohesive landscape of Kirribilli Point that includes both Kirribilli and Admiralty House\n Potential for development or rebuilding of areas that are poorly presented and placing unnecessary pressures on security and privacy of the site and\n Review and re-design of the garden to emphasise heritage significance and introduce other elements of significance of the site.\n\nConstraints arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Operational, security and privacy requirements from the use of the site as a place of residence of the Prime Minister and visits by dignitaries\n Physical constraints of the site for development and\n Maintenance requirements and upkeep of the site resulting from age, building materials, siting, and damp issues of the site.\n\n## 7.3 Planned Works\n\nThe following works are currently planned for this site:\n\n Repairs to the garden paving\n Seawall stabilisation\n\nAll works will be undertaken in accordance with Policy 7 of this HMP.\n\n## 7.4 Policies and guidelines\n\nThe role of the conservation policies in this HMP is to provide specific guidelines for the conservation, on-going care, development and use of Kirribilli House and Garden so that its cultural significance is appropriately maintained, enhanced, and interpreted. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance.\n\n## 7.5 Management Policies\n\n### 7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP\n\nWhilst Kirribilli House and Garden remains a Commonwealth property, this HMP must be reviewed at least once every five years in accordance with Section 341X (1) of the EPBC Act. The review should assess the content of the plan and determine its effectiveness in protecting the heritage values of the place and make recommendations for updating or re-writing the plan as required. The review is to be undertaken with assistance from a heritage specialist and be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and Regulations for the review of management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places. The review is to focus on amending responsibilities, include commentary on any works undertaken since the last HMP review, and consider any changes or planned changes of use.\n\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | The conservation policies set out in this plan should be adopted by PM&C and implementedRelevant policies should be cross referenced to other management documentsA copy of the HMP should be retained on siteThis HMP must be updated every five years by PM&C with the assistance of a heritage specialist to ensure it remains relevant to the use of Kirribilli House and Garden and to ensure statutory compliance is maintainedThis HMP should also be updated after any significant changes to the site have occurred. At a minimum, the review must:Assess whether the plan is consistent with the Commonwealth Heritage management principles in force at the timeAssess whether the plan is effective in protecting and conserving the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenMake recommendations for the improved protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenThe listed Commonwealth Heritage values will be monitored, reviewed and reported on annually as part of the PM&C Annual Reporting Cycle. This information will be provided to DCCEEW every three years, as outlined in the PM&C Heritage Strategy. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth asset on Commonwealth land within NSW, managed by PM&C. If the asset leaves Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), ongoing heritage protection would be required under S341ZE of the EPBC Act. An update and revision of this HMP would then be required to accurately consider and reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements.\n\nResponsibility for undertaking the review of the HMP should fall to the new owner and should be undertaken within six months of the sale, and/or prior to the undertaking of any changes to Kirribilli House and Garden. To ensure that this requirement is recognised by the new owner it should form part of the sale/transfer documents between PM&C and the new owner.\n\nUnder S341ZE of the EPBC Act, PM&C must notify the Minister of the proposed divestment and establish an appropriate mechanism to protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place during the sale/transfer process and after the property has left Commonwealth control (such as a covenant \nin the sale/transfer documents, or equivalent arrangements).\n\nA copy of the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment as NSW heritage legislation would apply in the absence of Commonwealth ownership. The heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden should therefore be nominated by PM&C for formal protection under the NSW heritage system in the event of divestment.\n\nConsultation with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment will be necessary at least 12 months prior to the property leaving Commonwealth ownership, to ensure the appropriate nominations are in place to provide ongoing heritage protection. PM&C should also consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and submit the consultation outcomes to Heritage NSW.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been assessed as having outstanding heritage values and thus potentially reaching the threshold for inclusion on the NHL. Along with inclusion on the NSW SHR, a NHL listing would provide an additional layer of protection of the heritage values of the site. It is recommended that the site should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL.\n\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C must notify the Minister responsible for heritage of the intention to divest or lease the site, in accordance with the timeframes specified under S341ZE of the EPBC ActThis HMP should be reviewed to reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements. The HMP should be updated within six months of a Change of Ownership or Lease agreementIf the site is to leave Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and EnvironmentConsultation should occur with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the consultation outcomes submitted to Heritage NSWKirribilli House and Garden should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL and NSW SHR. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades\n\nThis HMP was prepared using a range of expert advice. For successful long-term interpretation and implementation of this Plan, continuity of competent advice is important to avoid implications from \nill-advised decisions.\n\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | Persons with suitable expertise and experience in conservation projects should be engaged for the resolution of conservation issues, as well as for input into the design and administration of conservation work on the place. Expert persons may include heritage architects, heritage landscape architects, heritage consultants, traditional (stone/slate/plaster) material contractors and arborists. |\n| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.4 Training and resources\n\nOccupants, staff, managers and contractors should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. Contractors should be given a copy of the Heritage Induction Training Manual provided in Appendix P.\n\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | All personnel on site should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and GardenA copy of the Heritage Induction Training Materials should be provided to contractors undertaking works on site. |\n| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities\n\nOwnership and property management of Kirribilli House and Garden including heritage management and Capital Works is managed by PM&C HOST. Other stakeholder management roles and responsibilities are set out in Section 1.6.\n\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders should be familiar with the roles and responsibilities of each agency. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping\n\nWorks undertaken to modify elements of Kirribilli House and Garden need to be approved by PM&C. Works may include:\n\n- determining if EPBC Act referral is necessary\n- determining if a HIA is required for proposed works\n- design works referencing the HMP\n- engaging a specialist to provide advice and undertake the submission of the draft HIA\n- undertaking EPBC Act self-assessment\n- undertaking consultation with DCCEEW\n- undertaking the attainment of approvals\n- commencement of works\n- documentation of the works.\n\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | All works that are the responsibility of PM&C shall be in accordance with the PM&C approval process included in HOW TO: Procurement Address Heritage Considerations (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023)Implementation of policies and works should be recorded by PM&C and records shall be maintained in the ShareHub systemDetails of day to day property maintenance will be kept by JLL with regular reports provided to PM&C filing on its ShareHub system. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.7 Legislative approvals process\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth property and hence must be managed in accordance with Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations (see Table 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist) and the policies in this HMP. If proposed works are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, approval must be sought through the EPBC Act referral process. The first step in assessing the impact of any proposed works is to prepare a self-assessment, in the format of a Heritage Impact Assessment. This should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist. If the self-assessment finds the action will or might have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage listed values, the action will need to be referred to the Minister for Environment and Water in accordance with Sections 26 and 29 of the EPBC Act. Advice can be sought from DCCEEW on this process and any potential actions. Any proposed works should consider alternatives to minimise impacts to heritage values.\n\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | Kirribilli House and Garden must be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles set out in Schedule 7B of the EPBC RegulationsConsultation should be undertaken early on EPBC Act referrals with DCCEEW heritageApproval should be sought through the EPBC referral processConsideration should be given to alternatives to minimise heritage impacts. |\n| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance\n\nIf compliance with the NCC and DDA to meet health, safety and energy efficiency requirements are likely to have a substantial impact on significant fabric or heritage values. Alternative engineered solutions that minimise impacts should be considered and promoted.\n\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | Compliance with the NCC or DDA should focus on responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect the significance. An alternative engineered solution may need to be sought if deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot be met. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to code compliance should be avoided. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.9 Safety\n\nKirribilli House is required to meet current safety standards as both a workplace and as a building. Measures should be taken to balance the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place with these safety obligations. All buildings and workplaces are required to meet various safety codes, including Kirribilli House. As a workplace, PM&C, with staff at the property, are required to ensure a safe work environment at all times and they must ensure that all incumbents and their families, as well as staff and visitors to the property are aware of any safety risks.\n\n| Policy 9. Safety | PM&C should aim to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code Australia (BCA) when they apply. Any strategies or solutions to make Kirribilli House comply with the BCA requirements should balance the cultural significance of the place with the objectives of the BCA. If conflict occurs, external heritage and architectural advice may be requiredWorks that improve the health and safety of the property are necessary, however they should be planned and designed ina sympathetic manner, so they do not negatively impact the Commonwealth Heritage values of the placeShould there be a conflict between the provision of safety measures and the protection of heritage fabric, safety should be the overriding factor which determines the measures necessaryAlternative solutions and compromises should be pursued wherever possible so that a solution is designed which meets both safety and heritage considerationsIt should be noted however, that whilst the BCA does not affect these items retrospectively, WH&S compliance is a current legislative obligationAn asbestos management plan should be implemented for any remaining asbestos. |\n| ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability\n\nAccess for people with a disability is currently inadequate. Although the DDA is not prescriptive, \nit would be best practice for Kirribilli House to have a policy for providing dignified and easy access. The DDA makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their disability. It is not specifically about buildings, however it has an effect on buildings in which the design and construction prevents access by people with a disability; as the owners of those buildings can be deemed to be discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.\n\n| Policy 10. Access for people with a disability | The following procedure should be applied when considering changes to heritage buildingsReview the significance of the place and identify the elements of greatest significanceUndertake an Access Audit to determine existing and required levels of accessibility; noting that some areas are exempt under the NCCEvaluate access options within a Commonwealth Heritage context. This process includes consultation with authorities and approval of the proposed actionPrepare the access policy or action planImplement the necessary action. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.11 Planning and coordination\n\nProposing ad-hoc changes can have an adverse impact on the significant values of the place. \nOver time, when these ad-hoc measures are undertaken independently, without coordination, \nplanning or expert advice, they can result in compounding adverse impact on the values of the place.\n\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | A coordinated and planned approach is necessary when proposing changes to Kirribilli House and GardenThe proposed activity should be reviewed within a holistic management framework to avoid adverse impacts resulting fromad-hoc measures. |\n| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation\n\nEarly consultation with stakeholders is required to comply with the EPBC Regulations when managing heritage places. The EPBC Act requires public notification of a HMP. This consultation process may be undertaken once a final HMP is available. In accordance with the referral assessment process under the EPBC Act, any proposed action that will impact on the heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden must also be notified for public comment.\n\nWhilst works proposed to Kirribilli House do not need to comply with local planning requirements, \nif significant works are proposed, it is recommended that North Sydney Council be informed.\n\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | Relevant stakeholder consultation should be undertaken early as part of managing the heritage place, allowing sufficient time for input in accordance with the EPBC ActThe HMP must be available for public notificationAny proposed action that impacts the heritage values of Kirribilli House must be notified for public commentIf substantial works are proposed, North Sydney Council should be informed as a good neighbour policy. |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\nPlease note that as per Section 1.8.1, public notification and exhibition of the draft HMP were carried out in 2023, prior to the finalisation of this document.\n\n \n\n## 7.6 Security\n\n### 7.6.1 Security and privacy\n\nManagement of Kirribilli House and Garden requires a high level of security and privacy.\n\n| Policy 13. Security and privacy | Elements of this HMP will be made available to government departments and external stakeholders on a need-to-know basisSections of the Heritage Induction Training Manual shall be made available to relevant contractors working on the site (see Appendix P) |\n| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.6.2 Security Infrastructure\n\nHome Affairs are responsible for the security infrastructure at Kirribilli House. The Australian Federal Police provide 24-hour physical security for the site. Extenuating circumstances may result in the disturbance of heritage fabric. The security of the property and the people within it will always outweigh any other requirements.\n\n| Policy 14. Security Infrastructure | Security requirements at Kirribilli House are fundamentally important for the safety and functionality of the house and those who work/live thereInterior security measures, such as distress buttons, are a high security priority. For security reasons they need to be placed in prominent, easily reached locations within the rooms, however whenever possible they should not be inserted into significant fabricWhile security is an essential operational requirement, any changes should be implemented in a way that minimises heritage impact where possible. |\n| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n## 7.7 Site-wide policies\n\n### 7.7.1 Conservation principles\n\nThe Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, known as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013), \nis 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. \nThere are seven principles that guide the care of heritage places:\n\n1\\. The place itself is important\n\n2\\. Understand the significance of the place\n\n3\\. Understand the fabric\n\n4\\. Significance should guide decisions\n\n5\\. Do as much as necessary, as little as possible\n\n6\\. Keep records\n\n7\\. Do everything in a logical order.\n\nThe use of the terms, conservation, preservation, reconstruction, adaptation, fabric, maintenance, repair, and compatible use in this report are defined in The Burra Charter.\n\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | Future work on the complex should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and its GuidelinesThe Commonwealth heritage values of the place should be the basis for all future planning and development. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.2 Setting\n\nThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting is a key contributory element to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden and its landmark qualities. The site is part of a continued landscape that includes Admiralty House on Kirribilli Point. Having met CHL Criterion B, D and E that relates to the setting of the place, it is crucial that the policy below be adopted to protect and maintain the CHL values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 16. Setting | The landmark qualities of Kirribilli House and Garden should be retained and protectedThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting should be retained, protected and promoted. This includes such key elements as the Victorian picturesque qualities (sweeping lawn, meandering paths, dramatic views and wild character), topography, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, harbour views and access to waterwayRetain and protect the continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. |\n| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.3 Streetscape\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to Kirribilli Conservation Area, which has been characterised by a mix of small, medium and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and contemporary residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | Kirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to the Kirribilli Conservation Area, hence contributory elements, including Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture, principal elevations, established garden, integration to topography and homogeneous scale, should all be retained and protected. |\n| ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.4 Significant views\n\nKirribilli House within Kirribilli Point forms part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape which is appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from Sydney Opera House, Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point and distant views from Bradley’s Head.\n\nThere is a harmonious relationship between the house, garden and the wider landscape which is the harbour setting. The site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden which include panoramas, framed and filtered views. This contributes to the picturesque setting and is part of the early planning of the site that evidence the key period of significance. Significant views identified have been included in Section 3.2.1 and 3.6 and are defined in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.\n\nFigure 7‑2.\n\n| Policy 18. Significant views | Significant views to and from Kirribilli House and Garden should be maintained and protectedThese include but are not limited to those identified in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.Figure 7‑2. |\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of the harbour near Kirribilli House outlining the significant views](image.178.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑1: Significant views to Kirribilli House from various vantage points of Sydney Harbour (maps.six.nsw.gov.au\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of Kirribilli House grounds highlighting the significant views seen from the property](image.179.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑2: Significant views from Kirribilli House and Garden (maps.six.nsw.gov.au)\n\n### 7.7.5 Heritage curtilage\n\nKirribilli House retains its original physical curtilage which is defined by the existing site boundary. \nThe site has maintained the early subdivision from Admiralty House estate and sold in 1854 to \nAdolph Feez who built the house in 1856. The earliest access to the site is likely to have been from the harbour and the earliest plans included boat access on the eastern boundary. The earliest plans also show access from Kirribilli Avenue.\n\nA visual curtilage can be extended to include vistas from the harbour and beyond from various vantage points.\n\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | The physical curtilage defined by the existing site boundary including access to the foreshore and Kirribilli Avenue should be retained and protectedA visual curtilage that includes vantage points of Kirribilli House and Garden from the harbourside should be retained protected. |\n| ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.6 Masterplans\n\nKirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House are major elements of Kirribilli Point that form part of the continuous Sydney Harbour landscape. There are both built and natural elements from both sites that are historically significant which should be preserved and promoted. Developing a masterplan will assist in identifying areas for future development, planning and maintenance of the site and minimise any detrimental effects from ad-hoc activities.\n\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | When opportunity presents, undertake one masterplan for Kirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House to guide future works. Include a study of the historical development of the site architectural style, massing, geometry/axis, vistas, and circulation (vehicular/pedestrian) studies. The plan should include a review of existing infrastructure/services and develop a site wide methodology for implementing new work. The plan should identify areas of future development including scale, height, massing and materials for potential future development. The masterplan should include a landscape masterplan that incorporates both sites as one landscape element of Kirribilli PointWhen opportunity presents, provide a detailed and updated version of the current Landscape Management Plan for Kirribilli House(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) to include the heritage significance of areas of the garden, identify specific historic elements relating to significance, consolidate information fromGeoff Britton’s landscape assessment (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H) and the AECOM Tree Survey, 2023Using the above information, compile a detailed landscape design for the garden with clear heritage and design principles for each garden areaThe landscape masterplan/updated Landscape Management Plan should study water drainage and succession planting to re-establish the lost tree canopies. It should also identify plant species on site that have high water consumption and propose alternative sub-species (whilst retaining the heritage values) that are more resilient. It should also consider reducing the ongoing erosion of the sandstone cliffA qualified heritage architect, heritage landscape architect and relevant service consultants should be engaged to undertake this workThis HMP should be updated in the next review to include findings from the masterplan and the updated Landscape Management Plan. |\n| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.7 Grounds generally\n\nThe garden at Kirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Vestiges of the pre-European landscape, Phase 1 –19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the grounds generally.\n\n| Policy 21. Grounds generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:- Vestiges of the pre-European landscape evidenced in the indigenous vegetation, rock outcrops, and sandstone cliffs, reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline- Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of thePeople-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque qualities, sweeping lawn, meandering stone paths, terracing, dry stone walling, fencing, dramatic views(panoramic, framed and filtered) and floristic (leaf form, colour, and texture).- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the plantings associated with significant people- Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the instruction of terracing, steps, trees, and plants (exotic and native)Retain a high quality of garden maintenance by engaging trade professionals with proven experience in horticulture, garden maintenance and heritage gardensEngage arborists as required to manage the health and safety of older treesPrior to removal and pruning of trees consider impacts to significant views (panoramas, framed and filtered)Do not introduce new structures in the garden except for temporary structures such as marquees and climbing framesDo not introduce new garden beds or new species of plants to the site unless implemented by a landscape masterplan or management planKeep a record of plants that have been part of memorials, functions, planted or gifted by dignitariesBuilt memorials should be avoided in the garden to retain the Victorian style and residential significance of the place. Australian artwork/sculptures may be incorporated if they are sympathetic to the significance of the placeOutdoor furniture, fixtures and fittings should be sympathetic of the heritage values of the place. Retain cast iron urns and sundialsRetain and repair as necessary the boundary fences to the sitePrior to implementing the Landscape Management Plan(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) for detailed works to hard and soft landscaping, resolve the inconsistencies of heritage landscape principles from Geoff Britton’s assessments updated information from AECOM’s Tree Survey 2023 through a landscape masterplan/detailed management plan or landscape design. |\n| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.8 House generally\n\nKirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 \n(Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the house generally.\n\n| Policy 22. House generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque setting, modest scale, irregular massing, steeply pitched gabled roofs with highly decorated bargeboards, prominent gable, gabled dormer, slate roof, textured masonry walling, bay windows, timber verandah and tall medieval looking chimneys, fireplaces, timber joinery- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the single storey addition (wet), bay window replacements to double hung window, gabled roof, and room to first floor, hallway widened, addition of bathrooms, garagePhase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the service wing, single storey additions to either side of porch, replacement of shutters, verandah infill for storeroom, timber valence reconstruction, security screens, eastern gable windows, main stair reconstruction, and conservation worksConserve and promote the relationship of the house to the garden such as verandahs and garden elementsRetain and protect the internal arrangement of spaces, inter-relationships of rooms and volumes of spacesRetain and conserve the hierarchy of public and private spacesThe house may be altered to suit the function as an Official Prime Minister’s Residence whilst respecting the heritage values of the placeNew work should not replicate previous styles but be of a contemporary style and sympathetic to the heritage values of the placeReconstruction works should be identifiable through subtle variation in detail and should be dated. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.9 Maintenance and repair\n\nSystematic maintenance will conserve significant fabric longer for the ultimate benefit of future generations. A site wide maintenance plan is provided in Section 8.0.\n\n| Policy 23. Maintenance | Implement the General Maintenance Plan included in this HMP in accordance with the policies contained in this HMPThe maintenance plan should be adopted by JLL under their contractual obligationsThe maintenance plan should be integrated into the PM&C asset maintenance processes. A Heritage Asset works/maintenance record should also be prepared and maintained for each activityPrior to undertaking any maintenance works, confirmed that the activity proposed is maintenance and complies with the policies an in this HMP. This should be confirmed by PM&CA dedicated budget should be implemented to guide on-going maintenance work on the significant elements identified in this HMPAdequate funding arrangements for maintenance and urgent repairs identified in this HMP should be put in placeIncrease rate of maintenance following inclement weather such as high winds and storms. Inspect all weatherproofing elements of the buildingsEnsure all contractors are made aware of the heritage values of the place by providing the Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P) to all contractors on site.Undertake a structural condition assessment of the site every five years by a qualified structural engineer. |\n| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.10 Emergency Works\n\nEmergency works should always be undertaken as a priority, wherever possible they should seek to be completely reversible. Emergency works (such as rectifying storm damage, repairing water leaks or attending electrical malfunctions) are a necessary aspect of managing the maintenance, safety and condition of Kirribilli House. By their very nature, they often have to be undertaken quickly with little planning. If works occur (due to safety or security reasons) that are not sympathetic, such work should be ‘undone’ as soon as practicable.\n\n| Policy 24. Emergency Works | Emergency works must always be undertaken as quickly as possible.Any emergency works should be recorded by PM&C, with the issue, condition prior to repairs and condition after repairs (including photographs) recorded as a minimum.PM&C, as the agency responsible for contractors carrying out emergency works to the fixed building elements, should be notified as soon as possible to inspect the temporary repairs and decide on a more permanent solution.All emergency works should be reversible whenever possible. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience\n\nSustainable and resilient methods are required to manage the adverse effects of climate change. The skilled craftsmanship and composition of old materials result in heritage buildings that are durable. The re-use of existing buildings and fabric reduces the embodied energy required for new development. Hence, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings should be considered as a first measure before new development is considered. An energy audit/thermal assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden will identify areas energy expenditure.\n\nThe Australian Public Service (APS) must comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy. APS Net Zero will be achieved by actively reducing emissions from APS operations as well as through offsets. This initiative will also encourage transparency by requiring Commonwealth entities to publicly report on their emissions, whilst supporting the uplift of climate capability across the APS.\n\nExtreme weather patterns in the future mean that there will be periods of extreme drought and wet weather as well as erratic events and increased climate induced disasters. Environmental factors specific to Kirribilli House and Garden in the future include:\n\n- Increase in ambient humidity levels and condensation within buildings leading to mould and damp\n- Dry weather patterns creating shrinking of fabric and cracks to structure\n- Intense rainfalls and storms causing inefficient water drainage from buildings and areas of the garden, damage to property\n- Long periods of rain\n- The existing rising damp conditions to worsen.\n\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience(a) Assessments/audits | Comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy.Should the opportunity arise, undertake the following assessments/audits:- Undertake an initial and periodic energy, water and thermal comfort assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden to identify areas of deficiencies, ideally over a year (to account for season)- Assess the existing ventilation in buildings and implement methods of improvement to minimise humidity in buildings e.g., sub floor ventilation- Assess rain and surface water runoff across the whole site and in buildings. This may include installing sensors to measure ground moisture. Implement improvements especially during torrential rainfall events- Assess the viability of measures to reduce water and energy consumption in the garden (additional rainwater tanks, automatic watering, solar powered garden lights, drought tolerant plants and grasses). |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (b) Implementation | Implement low impact measures sympathetic to heritage values such as upgrades to fittings and fixtures (e.g., light fittings, water closets, taps) and services (air conditioning units, gas fireplaces)Increase the rate of maintenance to existing buildings during periods of extreme weather eventsPromote adaptive reuse of buildings. Demonstrate and exhaust all other measures to ensure existing buildings are used efficiently prior to constructing new buildings and structuresSolar panels should be avoided on the main house structure to avoid impact on significant views of the house. Solar panels may be installed on the laundry building if an HIA has determined that physical and visual impacts are minimal. The works will require permission from OOSGGNew work/developments should incorporate sustainable design and construction methodsUndertake any catch-up maintenance activities. Ensure that cyclical maintenance and emergency maintenance are activated immediately. |\n| (c) Management plans | Develop a Sustainability Action Plan for the site and include all sustainability measures. Include a risk register and identify risks to heritage elements including loss of heritage significant plant species, loss of lawns, property damage from high winds, erosion impact to garden, risk to heritage fabric from damage, increase in pests and diseases in garden. Include measures to educate staff, contractors on creating an awareness of sustainability issues.Develop and implement a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the site that identifies potential risks to the site and its heritage values to prepare Kirribilli House and Garden for future events. This plan should identify elements of the site that maybe sacrificial losses. |\n\n### 7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management\n\nIt is recognised that Kirribilli House and Garden is located within a larger cultural landscape of high social, cultural, and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples and will apply a precautionary approach to the management of heritage values.\n\n| Policy 26. General | The overarching aim for the management of the Indigenous heritage values should be done in partnership with Indigenous stakeholders.Consider the preparation of an interpretation strategy covering intangible Indigenous heritage values in the context of the broader intangible cultural landscape. This should be undertaken with Indigenous consultation.Indigenous stakeholders should be consulted regarding any potential impacts if any Indigenous heritage values are identified in relation to Kirribilli House and Garden. Consultation, in all instances, should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Ask First Guidelines.Should a plan be formulated for the management of the garden, there may be an opportunity for consideration to be given to Indigenous plantings to be added to the existing landscape, to allow for interpretation of the history of the location. Such a garden plan should be guided by the findings of the interpretation strategy and the consultation outcomes of the intangible cultural landscape values. |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nPrior to commencement of any new development activities/works within Kirribilli House and Garden, all relevant site personnel and contractors should be made aware of Indigenous heritage values. The discovery of unexpected Indigenous heritage should trigger ”Stop Works” as detailed in Policy 27.\n\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | Unexpected Indigenous Heritage Finds Procedure (excluding human skeletal remains)1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the artefact/site must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing).2. Notification - The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management about the discovery and seek advice.3. Impact Assessment - If required, undertake an assessment for the proposed activity/works in accordance with relevant heritage guidelines.4. Impact Mitigation - Implement management actions detailed in the assessment.5. Reporting - Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the new site and any implemented management actions.Unexpected Human Skeletal Remains Procedure - For any confirmed or suspected human skeletal remains, the following procedure should be followed:1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the remains must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing). The remains must not be left unattended.2. Notification: The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management of the discovery. They, in turn, must notify the Coroner’s Office and the Military Police, who will notify appropriate local authorities. If it is confirmed by these authorities that the remains are Indigenous Ancestral Remains, they should, as soon as practicable, report the existence of the remains to Indigenous stakeholders and relevant State-based heritage authorities.3. Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Management should consult with Indigenous stakeholders and an appropriately experienced and qualified heritage consultant. In general, the first management option should be avoidance of the location. If this is not possible, then relocation of the remains to a designated keeping place, or reburial at a location near to the original (but within an area that will not be impacted) should be undertaken. The wishes of the Indigenous stakeholders should guide these actions. The excavation and handling of any Indigenous skeletal remains should follow best practice scientific guidelines (e.g., NSW Heritage Office, 1998).4. GEMS Update:- Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the remains and implemented management actions. |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nConsider the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process, acknowledging security and safety constraints.\n\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | Kirribilli House and Garden is an active, high security area with access needing to be arranged in advance through appropriate personnel, with all visitors subject to security clearance and induction processes. Existing security and induction procedures notwithstanding, should Indigenous values be identified in the future, the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process should then be developed, which could potentially provide approval for on-site cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies. In general, should any interested Indigenous community members wish to enter for cultural reasons, they should contact the appropriate management contact who should facilitate the visit. |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nIndigenous stakeholders should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any public disclosures pertaining to the Indigenous heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | The investigation of intangible Indigenous cultural heritage values, and in the event that finds occur during future works, may result in the identification of Indigenous values relating to Kirribilli House and Garden. Should information regarding such Indigenous heritage values be proposed for release into the public domain, Indigenous stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on any disclosures prior to their release. All comments received should be considered and inform the final disseminated disclosure. |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.13 Services\n\nThe insertion of any new services should be carefully considered and consider the original structure and fabric of the heritage buildings to minimise impact.\n\n| Policy 30. Services | Services should be minimised in their extent and carefully planned to minimise damage to significant fabricNew, replacement and upgraded services should use existing conduits and ducts wherever possibleCeiling-mounted fittings, such as detectors and light fittings with minimal fixings are recommendedSurface-mounted vertical risers are permitted, provided their style and finish is compatible with the cultural significance of the space through which they pass. Wherever possible, vertical risers should be in minor spaces of least cultural significanceLight fittings and electrical accessories (switch plates, GPOs) should not be period reproductions but discrete modern fixturesAir-conditioning units should be discreet in location and appearance. Any associated works should be positioned to avoid damage to significant fabricExternal air-conditioning units should be concealed from view, not located on the front façade of the building, and positioned to avoid damage to significant external fabric. |\n| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring\n\nAreas of high archaeological potential have been identified at the subject site. If excavation is proposed in these areas, further investigation by a suitably qualified archaeologist would be required prior to commencement of works.\n\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | Any excavation in areas of high archaeological potential should be carried out under archaeological supervision by a qualified archaeologistIf underfloor deposits are planned to be removed, engage an archaeologist to remove and assess to determine the presence of any artefactsIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, implement an unexpected finds procedure must be followed (see Figure 4‑27). |\n| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.15 Carparking and circulation\n\nThe site has limited potential for incorporating carparking and vehicular access without impacting on the garden setting of the site. The driveway loop originates from the Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 \n(Official Residence of the Prime Minister) and is graded as an item of moderate significance, \nhence may be modified for future requirements.\n\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | An increase to the number of carparking spaces currently provided is not recommended i.e., spaces for permanent garaged vehicles and informal parking of cars on drivewayThe driveway loop may be modified for future carparking and vehicular access but must have little to no impact on the garden setting. |\n| ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.16 Public access\n\nThere is limited public access due to security and privacy reasons. However, the site holds many functions where large number of people can attend the site at any one time. Open days of the house and garden are also held. It is important that the heritage significance of the site is communicated, and significant fabric is protected during these times by implementing a Visitor Management Strategy.\n\n| Policy 33. Public access | Undertake and implement a Visitor Management Strategy for the site.Public open days should occur every year however the level at which the property is open to the public should be decided in conjunction with the incumbentsAt a minimum the grounds should be open for inspection during open daysCare should be taken to protect artworks and furniture during open daysInterpretative materials should be available on the day |\n| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.17 Archival recording\n\nAn archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved for removal should be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage specialist in accordance with the Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, \nrevised 2006) guideline. The record should aim to capture the item prior to, during and after the proposed works. A copy of the archival record be provided to the local council and the NLA.\n\nCurrently there are several sites that hold vast amount of historical information relating to the site including, State Records, NLA, State Library of NSW, Stanton Library and PM&C. This information should be consolidated, and a central repository of information should be established.\n\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | Undertake an archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved to be demolished. The works should comply with Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, revised 2006) guidelineProvide a copy of the archival record to PM&C, council and NLA(with redacted information on security)Establish a central repository of information of historical data. |\n| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.18 Movable items\n\nThere are several movable items associated with Kirribilli House and Garden. These include a wide variety of furniture, art and memorabilia predominantly lent and managed by the Australian Fund (see detailed identification, care and management set out in the catalogue by Australian Fund, The Australian Fund, 2022). Additional items found on site should be assessed and recorded by suitably qualified persons and conserved on site or protected in off-site storage.\n\n| Policy 35. Movable items | The existing management practice and collaboration with Australian Fund and PM&C should continueIf additional moveable items are found, they should be identified and assessed by a suitably qualified person and conserved on site, or protected in an off-site storage facilityMovable items should be assessed for suitability for incorporation in an Interpretation Plan for the site. |\n| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.19 Heritage interpretation\n\nThere is an opportunity for the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden to be promoted to the public by undertaking an Interpretation Strategy. The strategy should be prepared by a heritage consultant and appropriately funded. This strategy should include consideration of security and safety requirements whilst communicating the heritage significance of the site.\n\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | An Interpretation Strategy should be prepared for Kirribilli House and Garden by a suitably qualified heritage consultantThe Interpretation Strategy should consider privacy, safety, and security requirements of the siteConsider the use of wide range of media, digital, paper, physical (signage, fabric) and sensory elements (e.g., textured materials in the garden and soundscapes)Include associations with significant people for the house as well as the garden (include signage adjacent to significant plants).Consider displaying historic photographsIncorporate any oral histories (e.g., descendants of the Feez family, former Prime Ministers)Include Indigenous heritage values and consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal parties.If there is an opportunity, undertake an Indigenous Intangible Cultural Values study and to incorporate reference to Indigenous past in the garden through a cohesive approach.An Indigenous Interpretation Strategy may be prepared as a separate documentCreate a unified and consistent style, sympathetic to the heritage aesthetic of the site, for interpretation of the site e.g., style of fonts and colours for signs. |\n| ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.20 Signage and external lighting\n\nThere is limited signage on site that is in keeping with the residential character of the site. There is also a mixture of light fittings in the house and garden with majority of fittings originating from the 1957 modifications and some reproduced Victorian lamps.\n\nSignage and external lighting can add to the character of the site. Signage and lighting should not adversely affect the significant heritage fabric and overall character of the site. When installing signage, the fixings should be reversible and not damage significant fabric.\n\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | Should the opportunity, arise develop a complex-wide signage and external lighting plan for the site.Signage and lighting should be in harmony with the historic character of the site and compliant with current Australian health and safety standardsFree standing signage systems should be used for major directional signs, with smaller signs applied to selected areas with a minimum of fixingsSigns should not be attached to the brickwork walls of the buildingsIf the opportunity arises, a lighting designer or architect should be engaged to undertake a site wide study of existing lighting to the house and garden, and propose a lighting plan that is a contemporary design and sympathetic to the heritage values of the siteIncorporate sustainable lighting practices. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.8 Contributory elements\n\nContributory elements (tangible and intangible) to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden have been identified in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements. \nThese elements are essential to the significance of the place and should be conserved according to the following policies.\n\n| Policy 38 | |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (1) Curtilage | See policy 7.7.5. |\n| (2) Relationship to Admiralty House | Conserve and protect views to Admiralty House and key elements within its gardenRetain the existing access points at the western boundary. |\n| (3) Views and vistas to Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (4) Views and vistas from Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (5) Pre-European vestiges | Retain and protect features of the pre-European landscape including, plantings, rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs. |\n| (6) Entrance gates, stone walls, and fences | Retain and conserve stone walls and wrought iron gates.Consider replacing the side entry gate to an interpreted detail of the early gate from 1913 (Figure 5-11Figure 5‑6)Fencing to the northern boundary may be altered to interpret earlier detailsThe fencing along the boundary to Admiralty House may be altered to a more open style of fence to interpret the connection between the two sites. |\n\n \n\n| (7) Driveway, driveway loop and entrance forecourt | An entry precinct that is grand and in keeping with the Victorian themed garden style should be retainedPlant species should be sourced from available archival sources of the Victorian eraThe entry drive should not be increased in area for future useAn updated Landscape Management Plan should review the significance of the species of camellias to confirm their association with the work of Professor E G WaterhouseA Landscape Management Plan should seek to undertake further research and gain expert opinion are required to confirm appropriateness of the Jacaranda trees on the site. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (8) Upper eastern grassed banks and terraces | The steep grassed banks should be retained and existing view preserved. |\n| (9) Lower eastern lawn terrace and eastern walk | The steep grassed banks of the lower terrace should be retained as an open space permitting views to the harbour and views to the house from the harbourPlantings to the south should be consistent with the Victorian eraOpportunities for reinstating Indigenous vegetation should be investigated. |\n| (10) Northeast gardens and walks | The sandstone outcrops should be retained and not concealedThe meandering paths should be retainedPlantings should be appropriate to the Victorian era and should also address loss of privacy to the northern boundary from tree lossThe poorly executed sandstone paving on north-eastern and lower grounds should be reviewed. |\n| (11) Northeastern terrace | The stone wall and paving should be reconstructed with a rustic theme, providing a focus for the existing rock outcropCourses should follow the horizontal bias with no vertical elementsPlantings should be consistent with the Victorian era, promote Indigenous vegetation, provide privacy, and retain filtered views. |\n| (12) Clifftop garden | The wild character of the garden should be retained without impeding on viewsThe safety aspects of the garden should be reviewedIndigenous vegetation should be promoted. |\n| (13) Foreshore and cliffs | The foreshore and cliff line with sandstone face should be retainedIndigenous plantings should be promotedSafety and design of the access pathways that lead to the boat harbour and bathing pool below should be reviewed. |\n| (14) Harbourside ruins | The boat harbour, bathing pool, boatsheds and retaining walls should be retained and conservedAn archival record of existing structures should be undertakenFurther physical studies of this area should be undertakenExisting retaining walls should be stabilised |\n| (15) Southern lawn terrace and rockeries | The stone flagged areas, rockeries, and terraces should be retained and conservedThe steel pipe handrail should be upgraded to comply with current access codes. |\n| (16) Western garden including hedged lawn and kitchen garden | The hedged lawn and kitchen garden should be retained and conserved |\n| (17) Paths and stairs | Existing paths and stairs should be retainedA landscape masterplan should study existing paths and stairs and propose a plan considering hierarchy of paths, detailing of edging, consolidation, and cohesive palette of materialsrandom stone paving to lower areas should be removed and replaced with bitumenThe drainage of paths away from the building line should be ensured |\n| (18) Significant trees | All significant trees and plants identified in this HMP and Landscape Management Plan should be retained and protected.A program for succession of identified plantings should be undertaken, particularly to address loss of tree canopy and privacy along Kirribilli Avenue. |\n| (19) Victorian Rustic Gothic style features | The stylistic features of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture should be retained, protected and conserved. |\n| (20) North elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe entry porch in its current configuration should be retained. Steps may be altered but should remain symmetrical to the porchDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (21) East elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in its current configuration should be retained, including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (22) South elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in current configuration should be retained including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to nineteenth century wallsThe timber storeroom may be removed, and the original verandah may be reinstated. |\n| (23) West elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedRoom and gabled roof over the northwest corner of building should be retainedSingle storey parapet wing may be removed or alteredThe service wing may be removed or alteredThe awning entry may be removed or alteredDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (24) Roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods | The roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods should be retained and conservedIf required install, safety anchors on internal slopes. |\n| (25) Masonry walls | Masonry walls and associated elements should be retained and conservedRepairs and conservation work to masonry walls should follow traditional repair methodsDo not use cement render on pre-1950s wallsPaint finish should be retained. |\n| (26) Verandah | The verandah and associated elements should be retained and conservedDo not infill any part of the verandahStoreroom/infill to verandah may be retained or removedFuture replacement of roof should be corrugated copper. |\n| (27) Entry porch including front doors | The entry porch and doors should be retained and conservedThe entry steps may be altered but the symmetry and stone fabric should be retainedThe front doors may be relocated to its original location. The doorframe and fanlight should be retainedStone flagging to interior may be replaced with unglazed tessellated tile. |\n| (28) Bay window including parapet and flat roof | The bay window and its elements should be retained and conserved |\n| (29) French doors | The French doors and associated elements including hardware should be retained and conservedReinstatement of the earlier narrow doors to eastern elevation is not requiredSteel security doors have been designed sympathetically to the doors and should be retainedDo not modify early doors to include double glazing. |\n| (30) Windows | The early casement windows, Gothic windows (porch) and multi-paned double hung windows should be retained and conservedAssociated elements including hardware should be retainedDo not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (31) Shutters | The early shutters (pre-1957) should be retained and conservedShutters of later date may be removed or modified.Do not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (32) Post 1950s additions | Additions may be retained or demolishedIf removed, the original details of the walls should be reinstated. |\n| (33) Service wing | Service wing may be retained or demolished. |\n| (34) Entry hall including Entry lobby | The entry hall and lobby in its current configuration should be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (35) Drawing room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating original wall between roomsSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (36) Dining room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating the opening size between dining and drawing roomSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (37) Prime Minister’s study | Should be retained in its current configurationThe glass doors to the east may be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (38) Green room | Should be retained in its current configurationShelving to either side of fireplace may be altered or removed and former door in this area may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (39) Hallways and stairs | Should be retained in its current configurationThe narrow hall should not be reinstated at ground floorSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (40) Family room | Should be retained in its current configurationSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (41) Bedrooms | Should be retained in its current configurationFireplace may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved. |\n| (42) Bathrooms | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (43) Spaces in service wing | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (44) Internal joinery, including doors, architraves, and skirtings | All pre-1950s joinery should be retained and conserved in situ to reflect the different periods of developmentWhere joinery is polished, polish finish should be retained and not painted overConservation works should consider reinstating the polished/grained finish to early joinery. |\n| (45) Services | See 7.7.12 |\n| (46) Garage | The garage may be altered internally. |\n| (47) Guard house | The meandering paths should be retainedThe guard house may be altered or demolished. |\n| (48) Storeroom | The storeroom may be altered or demolished. |\n| (49) Moveable items | See 7.7.18 |\n\n## 7.9 New work\n\n### 7.9.1 Adaptive re-use\n\nKirribilli House and Garden was constructed as a residence in 1856 and used as a residence during the key period of significance Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920. The site has continued its residential function when it became the Official Sydney Residence of the Prime Minister in 1957, hence the current use is consistent with the historical significance of the site. The residential use is evidenced in the planning of the house and garden as well as its physical fabric.\n\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | The most compatible use for Kirribilli House and Garden is a residential useKirribilli House and Garden should be retained as an Official Sydney Establishment of the Prime Minister and its ownership continued by the CommonwealthBefore considering adaptive re-use an assessment should be made of the compatibility of new use to the site’s historical function, potential loss of associations with prime ministerial roles and potential impacts (physical and visual) on heritage significanceFuture adaptive reuse should also consider hierarchy of public and private use of parts of the site and where feasible allowing public access. |\n| ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.2 New development, additions and infills\n\nThe original house built in 1856 was located on the smoothed platform above the rock outcrop centred on the site. The house was extended to the west in the latter two phases. Minor infills and extension to the house have occurred also taken place during this time. Outbuildings were located as a garden structure on the central garden area, to the west of the site and harbourside structures to the eastern boundary. There is opportunity to restore the ruins of the harbourside structures. Modifications or replacement of the service wing from 1957 is possible. Elsewhere on the site, there is limited opportunity for development without potential impact to heritage significance. Any development of the laundry building which is owned by OOSG has potential to impact the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. There is additional opportunity for development if the site was consolidated with Admiralty House (investigated in Kirribilli House Master Plan Report (Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd, 1981). Opportunities should be considered through a new masterplan study.\n\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | There is minimal opportunity for new development, additions and infills at Kirribilli House and GardenUse of existing spaces should be maximised prior to considering alternatives to developAll other opportunities that have little or no impacts to heritage values should be exhausted prior to considering new developmentRestoration of the harbourside structures should be considered.There is opportunity to modify or replace the service wing from 1957New development should consider the existing architectural style, forms and masses and ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic and do not compete with the Rustic Victorian character of the placeNew work should adopt the principle of reversibility to mitigate potential impactsNew work should use high quality of materials |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is not a static house museum and it should continue to evolve with each incumbent as the requirements for its use change. Changes to the historical uses, however, should be carefully assessed for compatibility of spaces and only implemented once all other options have been investigated and discarded.\n\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | Change of use to spaces are permissibleAreas of low significance have high tolerance and flexibility for changesAreas of high significance have low tolerance and flexibility and compatible uses should be first considered before considering options. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.10 Conservation in accordance with significance\n\nMuch of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House is embodied in the physical fabric of the place. Section 5.4.1 of this HMP sets out the grading scale for significant elements ranging from those elements of exceptional significance down to those that are intrusive. It follows that conservation action should be related to an element’s relative level of significance. Grading of significant fabric in each element/building is included in 5.4.3 and guidelines for managing change are identified in Section 5.4.2.\n\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | Much of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House and Garden is embodied in the physical elements and fabric of the place. Conservation action should be related to the elements or fabric’s level of significanceAny repair, conservation or reconstruction works to significant elements or facades must be undertaken with appropriate direction by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, architect and/or relevant materials specialist/s or conservator and with reference to historical documentation. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n## 7.11 Conservation of Materials\n\n### 7.11.1 Traditional materials\n\nKirribilli House and Garden consists of several traditional materials including slate, lead, copper, sandstone, brick, cast iron and timber.\n\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | A heritage architect should be engaged to undertake works and provide advice on to traditional materialsWhen repairing or altering traditional materials, a qualified and experienced traditional trades contractor should be engaged to undertake the work or supervise the work. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.2 Reconstruction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has many details that are missing or have been undertaken in an inappropriate manner. When these works are proposed to be reconstructed, the work should be based on documentary evidence of an earlier state.\n\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | Reconstruction is appropriate only where an element is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the elementReconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection. |\n| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes\n\nWhen repainting, the choice of paint colours should be based on an understanding of original colours and finishes used – through documentary and analysis of physical evidence (e.g., paint scrapes). \nIf repainting is required, original colour schemes should be re-instated for significant elements. \nA colour palette and interior design advice was provided in the 2016 HMP and should be used to guide future works.\n\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | Refer to Kirribilli House – Colour Palette and Interior Design Heritage Advice, Appendix O. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods\n\nThere are areas of the site that have been inappropriately repaired or conserved. These include the cement mortar repairs to masonry and conservation works where details are exact replicas. \nWhen opportunity arises, undertake works to remedy areas. Works should be prioritised and only those items identified as intrusive should be modified.\n\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | When practical, previous inappropriate repair and conservation methods should be remedied with the use of traditional methods according to priority. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP\n\nThis HMP should be reviewed every five years and considered for full update every ten years or when large-scale changes are proposed that are not considered in this HMP. The implementation of the HMP should also be reviewed every five years.\n\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | This HMP should be reviewed every five years (or when large-scale changes are proposed that have not already been considered in this HMP)This HMP should be reviewed every ten years and considered for a full update.The implementation of the HMP should be reviewed every five years (assessing works priorities, if the HMP is actually implementing the policies and strategies, and the condition of the place and the condition of its listed Commonwealth Heritage values – see table below).These reviews should be documented as reports with findings and actions clearly documented, |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n```html\n

Commonwealth Heritage Values

Reporting and monitoring

Criterion A - Processes – Attributes: The fabric and form of the house

When reviews are undertaken on the effectiveness of the implementation of the HMP policies, these should be applied to the Commonwealth heritage values through a qualitative assessment of the retention of the attributes listed against each relevant criterion (A, B, D, E, G and H). The success in retaining these attributes and thus the associated values that reside in them should be documented as reports with clearly stated findings and actions.

Criterion B - Rarity – Attributes: The house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour

Criterion D - Characteristic values – Attributes: The building's form, its external styling and details, and its early and original fabric

Criterion E - Aesthetic characteristics – Attributes:

The architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour

Criterion G - Social value – Attributes: The house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days

Criterion H - Significant people – Attributes: The whole of the building, both internally and externally

\n```\n\n \n\n### 7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis\n\nA review of reports for the site has identified knowledge gaps. Opportunities should be sought for these to be addressed as part of future investigations and assessments.\n\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | Opportunities should be sought to fill the following knowledge gaps:The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysisAlthough there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be locatedDiscussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruinsDiscussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listedDemonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistasConfirmation of the position and detail of the original staircaseThe detail of the original front doorThe detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevationThe early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of StudyThe detail of the original verandahThe detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracketDetails of the original drawing room windowsThe early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and gratesThe detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbourDetails of original fencing and gates, |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n \n\n| Policy | Responsibility | Priority | Timing |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- |\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | PM&C to adopt and implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C to notify, review and consult | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | PM&C to engage appropriate experts | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | PM&C to induct | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | PM&C to manage | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 9:Saftey | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 10: Access for people with a disability | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | PM&C to plan and coordinate | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 13. Security | PM&C to provide | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 14 Security infrastructure | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 16. Setting | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 18. Significant views | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | PM&C to undertake | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 21-23. Grounds generally / House generally / Maintenance | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 24 Emergency works policy | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 26. General | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 30. Services | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | PM&C to engage appropriate specialists | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 33. Public access | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 35. Movable items | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | PM&C to develop | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 38. | PM&C to conserve and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-10 years |\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-5 years |\n\n## 7.12 Implementation plan\n\nThe following implementation plan should be utilised for the policies listed above.\n\n \n\n# 8.0 Maintenance Schedule\n\n## 8.1 Introduction\n\nRegular, on-going inspection and maintenance is vital to the longevity of heritage buildings and to preserve their heritage significance. The following section provides the required catch up maintenance, a cyclical inspection and maintenance schedule.\n\n## 8.2 Catch-up Maintenance\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been well maintained, resulting in a good overall condition. Conservation of the exterior stonework has been carried out within the last five years. A few catch-up maintenance items were noted. Cleaning of the exterior has been added to the maintenance schedule in Section 8.3.","sortOrder":179},{"sectionNumber":"7.11.1 Traditional materials","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.11.1 Traditional materials","content":"### 7.11.1 Traditional materials\n\nKirribilli House and Garden consists of several traditional materials including slate, lead, copper, sandstone, brick, cast iron and timber.\n\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | A heritage architect should be engaged to undertake works and provide advice on to traditional materialsWhen repairing or altering traditional materials, a qualified and experienced traditional trades contractor should be engaged to undertake the work or supervise the work. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":180},{"sectionNumber":"7.11.2 Reconstruction","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.11.2 Reconstruction","content":"### 7.11.2 Reconstruction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has many details that are missing or have been undertaken in an inappropriate manner. When these works are proposed to be reconstructed, the work should be based on documentary evidence of an earlier state.\n\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | Reconstruction is appropriate only where an element is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the elementReconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection. |\n| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":181},{"sectionNumber":"7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes","content":"### 7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes\n\nWhen repainting, the choice of paint colours should be based on an understanding of original colours and finishes used – through documentary and analysis of physical evidence (e.g., paint scrapes). \nIf repainting is required, original colour schemes should be re-instated for significant elements. \nA colour palette and interior design advice was provided in the 2016 HMP and should be used to guide future works.\n\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | Refer to Kirribilli House – Colour Palette and Interior Design Heritage Advice, Appendix O. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":182},{"sectionNumber":"7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservati","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods","content":"### 7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods\n\nThere are areas of the site that have been inappropriately repaired or conserved. These include the cement mortar repairs to masonry and conservation works where details are exact replicas. \nWhen opportunity arises, undertake works to remedy areas. Works should be prioritised and only those items identified as intrusive should be modified.\n\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | When practical, previous inappropriate repair and conservation methods should be remedied with the use of traditional methods according to priority. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":183},{"sectionNumber":"7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review ","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP","content":"### 7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP\n\nThis HMP should be reviewed every five years and considered for full update every ten years or when large-scale changes are proposed that are not considered in this HMP. The implementation of the HMP should also be reviewed every five years.\n\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | This HMP should be reviewed every five years (or when large-scale changes are proposed that have not already been considered in this HMP)This HMP should be reviewed every ten years and considered for a full update.The implementation of the HMP should be reviewed every five years (assessing works priorities, if the HMP is actually implementing the policies and strategies, and the condition of the place and the condition of its listed Commonwealth Heritage values – see table below).These reviews should be documented as reports with findings and actions clearly documented, |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n```html\n

Commonwealth Heritage Values

Reporting and monitoring

Criterion A - Processes – Attributes: The fabric and form of the house

When reviews are undertaken on the effectiveness of the implementation of the HMP policies, these should be applied to the Commonwealth heritage values through a qualitative assessment of the retention of the attributes listed against each relevant criterion (A, B, D, E, G and H). The success in retaining these attributes and thus the associated values that reside in them should be documented as reports with clearly stated findings and actions.

Criterion B - Rarity – Attributes: The house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour

Criterion D - Characteristic values – Attributes: The building's form, its external styling and details, and its early and original fabric

Criterion E - Aesthetic characteristics – Attributes:

The architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour

Criterion G - Social value – Attributes: The house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days

Criterion H - Significant people – Attributes: The whole of the building, both internally and externally

\n```","sortOrder":184},{"sectionNumber":"7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis","sectionType":"division","heading":"7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis","content":"### 7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis\n\nA review of reports for the site has identified knowledge gaps. Opportunities should be sought for these to be addressed as part of future investigations and assessments.\n\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | Opportunities should be sought to fill the following knowledge gaps:The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysisAlthough there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be locatedDiscussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruinsDiscussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listedDemonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistasConfirmation of the position and detail of the original staircaseThe detail of the original front doorThe detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevationThe early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of StudyThe detail of the original verandahThe detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracketDetails of the original drawing room windowsThe early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and gratesThe detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbourDetails of original fencing and gates, |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n \n\n| Policy | Responsibility | Priority | Timing |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- |\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | PM&C to adopt and implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C to notify, review and consult | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | PM&C to engage appropriate experts | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | PM&C to induct | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | PM&C to manage | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 9:Saftey | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 10: Access for people with a disability | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | PM&C to plan and coordinate | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 13. Security | PM&C to provide | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 14 Security infrastructure | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 16. Setting | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 18. Significant views | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | PM&C to undertake | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 21-23. Grounds generally / House generally / Maintenance | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 24 Emergency works policy | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 26. General | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 30. Services | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | PM&C to engage appropriate specialists | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 33. Public access | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 35. Movable items | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | PM&C to develop | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 38. | PM&C to conserve and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-10 years |\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-5 years |","sortOrder":185},{"sectionNumber":"7.12","sectionType":"part","heading":"Implementation plan","content":"## 7.12 Implementation plan\n\nThe following implementation plan should be utilised for the policies listed above.","sortOrder":186},{"sectionNumber":"8.0","sectionType":"part","heading":"Maintenance Schedule","content":"# 7.0 Managing heritage values\n\n## 7.1 Objectives\n\nThis HMP sets out a structure to assist PM&C for the future management of Kirribilli House and Garden are to ensure the operational duties continue to be carried out, while protecting the identified heritage values and achieving EPBC Act compliance. For historic heritage, it is to conserve the heritage significance through retention of buildings, fabric and landscape elements of significance including the preservation of the historical layout.\n\n## 7.2 Opportunities and constraints\n\nOpportunities and constraints arising from the identified heritage significance of a place establish \na baseline from where other issues such as maintenance and owner requirements can be considered. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance and requirements under the CHL.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden displays a high degree of significance due to the following:\n\n As the Official Sydney residence of the Australian Prime Minister since 1957\n The site evidences the early land grants to prominent Sydney residents\n Association with early public campaign to protect harbourside development in the 1920s\n Association with Admiralty House and forming part of a continued landscape that is Kirribilli Point\n The site has rare qualities as a surviving Victorian Rustic Gothic residence in a harbour setting and includes the remains of one of the earliest bathing pools on Sydney Harbour\n The site has representative values for its Victorian Rustic Gothic style of house and garden and\n The site is important to the people of Australia and is associated with various prime ministers, dignitaries, and significant people in the community.\n\nOpportunities arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Maintain a high quality of care and management of the site\n Interpreting the heritage values of the site including the different phases of development\n Presenting a cohesive landscape of Kirribilli Point that includes both Kirribilli and Admiralty House\n Potential for development or rebuilding of areas that are poorly presented and placing unnecessary pressures on security and privacy of the site and\n Review and re-design of the garden to emphasise heritage significance and introduce other elements of significance of the site.\n\nConstraints arising from this significance and use of the site are:\n\n Operational, security and privacy requirements from the use of the site as a place of residence of the Prime Minister and visits by dignitaries\n Physical constraints of the site for development and\n Maintenance requirements and upkeep of the site resulting from age, building materials, siting, and damp issues of the site.\n\n## 7.3 Planned Works\n\nThe following works are currently planned for this site:\n\n Repairs to the garden paving\n Seawall stabilisation\n\nAll works will be undertaken in accordance with Policy 7 of this HMP.\n\n## 7.4 Policies and guidelines\n\nThe role of the conservation policies in this HMP is to provide specific guidelines for the conservation, on-going care, development and use of Kirribilli House and Garden so that its cultural significance is appropriately maintained, enhanced, and interpreted. Future management decisions for Kirribilli House and Garden will have due regard to their heritage significance.\n\n## 7.5 Management Policies\n\n### 7.5.1 Implementation and review of HMP\n\nWhilst Kirribilli House and Garden remains a Commonwealth property, this HMP must be reviewed at least once every five years in accordance with Section 341X (1) of the EPBC Act. The review should assess the content of the plan and determine its effectiveness in protecting the heritage values of the place and make recommendations for updating or re-writing the plan as required. The review is to be undertaken with assistance from a heritage specialist and be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and Regulations for the review of management plans for Commonwealth Heritage places. The review is to focus on amending responsibilities, include commentary on any works undertaken since the last HMP review, and consider any changes or planned changes of use.\n\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | The conservation policies set out in this plan should be adopted by PM&C and implementedRelevant policies should be cross referenced to other management documentsA copy of the HMP should be retained on siteThis HMP must be updated every five years by PM&C with the assistance of a heritage specialist to ensure it remains relevant to the use of Kirribilli House and Garden and to ensure statutory compliance is maintainedThis HMP should also be updated after any significant changes to the site have occurred. At a minimum, the review must:Assess whether the plan is consistent with the Commonwealth Heritage management principles in force at the timeAssess whether the plan is effective in protecting and conserving the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenMake recommendations for the improved protection of the Commonwealth Heritage values of Kirribilli House and GardenThe listed Commonwealth Heritage values will be monitored, reviewed and reported on annually as part of the PM&C Annual Reporting Cycle. This information will be provided to DCCEEW every three years, as outlined in the PM&C Heritage Strategy. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.2 Change in Ownership or Lease\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth asset on Commonwealth land within NSW, managed by PM&C. If the asset leaves Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), ongoing heritage protection would be required under S341ZE of the EPBC Act. An update and revision of this HMP would then be required to accurately consider and reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements.\n\nResponsibility for undertaking the review of the HMP should fall to the new owner and should be undertaken within six months of the sale, and/or prior to the undertaking of any changes to Kirribilli House and Garden. To ensure that this requirement is recognised by the new owner it should form part of the sale/transfer documents between PM&C and the new owner.\n\nUnder S341ZE of the EPBC Act, PM&C must notify the Minister of the proposed divestment and establish an appropriate mechanism to protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of the place during the sale/transfer process and after the property has left Commonwealth control (such as a covenant \nin the sale/transfer documents, or equivalent arrangements).\n\nA copy of the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment as NSW heritage legislation would apply in the absence of Commonwealth ownership. The heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden should therefore be nominated by PM&C for formal protection under the NSW heritage system in the event of divestment.\n\nConsultation with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and Environment will be necessary at least 12 months prior to the property leaving Commonwealth ownership, to ensure the appropriate nominations are in place to provide ongoing heritage protection. PM&C should also consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and submit the consultation outcomes to Heritage NSW.\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been assessed as having outstanding heritage values and thus potentially reaching the threshold for inclusion on the NHL. Along with inclusion on the NSW SHR, a NHL listing would provide an additional layer of protection of the heritage values of the site. It is recommended that the site should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL.\n\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C must notify the Minister responsible for heritage of the intention to divest or lease the site, in accordance with the timeframes specified under S341ZE of the EPBC ActThis HMP should be reviewed to reflect the new site ownership and management arrangements. The HMP should be updated within six months of a Change of Ownership or Lease agreementIf the site is to leave Commonwealth ownership or control (change of lease), the updated HMP should be lodged with Heritage NSW of the Department of Planning and EnvironmentConsultation should occur with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the consultation outcomes submitted to Heritage NSWKirribilli House and Garden should be nominated for inclusion on the NHL and NSW SHR. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.3 Expert advice, skilled trades\n\nThis HMP was prepared using a range of expert advice. For successful long-term interpretation and implementation of this Plan, continuity of competent advice is important to avoid implications from \nill-advised decisions.\n\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | Persons with suitable expertise and experience in conservation projects should be engaged for the resolution of conservation issues, as well as for input into the design and administration of conservation work on the place. Expert persons may include heritage architects, heritage landscape architects, heritage consultants, traditional (stone/slate/plaster) material contractors and arborists. |\n| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.4 Training and resources\n\nOccupants, staff, managers and contractors should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. Contractors should be given a copy of the Heritage Induction Training Manual provided in Appendix P.\n\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | All personnel on site should be inducted and made aware of the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and GardenA copy of the Heritage Induction Training Materials should be provided to contractors undertaking works on site. |\n| -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.5 Roles and responsibilities\n\nOwnership and property management of Kirribilli House and Garden including heritage management and Capital Works is managed by PM&C HOST. Other stakeholder management roles and responsibilities are set out in Section 1.6.\n\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders should be familiar with the roles and responsibilities of each agency. |\n| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.6 Internal works approval and record keeping\n\nWorks undertaken to modify elements of Kirribilli House and Garden need to be approved by PM&C. Works may include:\n\n- determining if EPBC Act referral is necessary\n- determining if a HIA is required for proposed works\n- design works referencing the HMP\n- engaging a specialist to provide advice and undertake the submission of the draft HIA\n- undertaking EPBC Act self-assessment\n- undertaking consultation with DCCEEW\n- undertaking the attainment of approvals\n- commencement of works\n- documentation of the works.\n\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | All works that are the responsibility of PM&C shall be in accordance with the PM&C approval process included in HOW TO: Procurement Address Heritage Considerations (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023)Implementation of policies and works should be recorded by PM&C and records shall be maintained in the ShareHub systemDetails of day to day property maintenance will be kept by JLL with regular reports provided to PM&C filing on its ShareHub system. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.7 Legislative approvals process\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a Commonwealth property and hence must be managed in accordance with Schedule 7A and 7B of the EPBC Regulations (see Table 1‑3 EPBC Act Compliance Checklist) and the policies in this HMP. If proposed works are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, approval must be sought through the EPBC Act referral process. The first step in assessing the impact of any proposed works is to prepare a self-assessment, in the format of a Heritage Impact Assessment. This should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist. If the self-assessment finds the action will or might have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Heritage listed values, the action will need to be referred to the Minister for Environment and Water in accordance with Sections 26 and 29 of the EPBC Act. Advice can be sought from DCCEEW on this process and any potential actions. Any proposed works should consider alternatives to minimise impacts to heritage values.\n\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | Kirribilli House and Garden must be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles set out in Schedule 7B of the EPBC RegulationsConsultation should be undertaken early on EPBC Act referrals with DCCEEW heritageApproval should be sought through the EPBC referral processConsideration should be given to alternatives to minimise heritage impacts. |\n| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.8 National Construction Code (NCC) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance\n\nIf compliance with the NCC and DDA to meet health, safety and energy efficiency requirements are likely to have a substantial impact on significant fabric or heritage values. Alternative engineered solutions that minimise impacts should be considered and promoted.\n\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | Compliance with the NCC or DDA should focus on responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect the significance. An alternative engineered solution may need to be sought if deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot be met. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to code compliance should be avoided. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.9 Safety\n\nKirribilli House is required to meet current safety standards as both a workplace and as a building. Measures should be taken to balance the Commonwealth Heritage Values of the place with these safety obligations. All buildings and workplaces are required to meet various safety codes, including Kirribilli House. As a workplace, PM&C, with staff at the property, are required to ensure a safe work environment at all times and they must ensure that all incumbents and their families, as well as staff and visitors to the property are aware of any safety risks.\n\n| Policy 9. Safety | PM&C should aim to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code Australia (BCA) when they apply. Any strategies or solutions to make Kirribilli House comply with the BCA requirements should balance the cultural significance of the place with the objectives of the BCA. If conflict occurs, external heritage and architectural advice may be requiredWorks that improve the health and safety of the property are necessary, however they should be planned and designed ina sympathetic manner, so they do not negatively impact the Commonwealth Heritage values of the placeShould there be a conflict between the provision of safety measures and the protection of heritage fabric, safety should be the overriding factor which determines the measures necessaryAlternative solutions and compromises should be pursued wherever possible so that a solution is designed which meets both safety and heritage considerationsIt should be noted however, that whilst the BCA does not affect these items retrospectively, WH&S compliance is a current legislative obligationAn asbestos management plan should be implemented for any remaining asbestos. |\n| ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.10 Access for people with a Disability\n\nAccess for people with a disability is currently inadequate. Although the DDA is not prescriptive, \nit would be best practice for Kirribilli House to have a policy for providing dignified and easy access. The DDA makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their disability. It is not specifically about buildings, however it has an effect on buildings in which the design and construction prevents access by people with a disability; as the owners of those buildings can be deemed to be discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.\n\n| Policy 10. Access for people with a disability | The following procedure should be applied when considering changes to heritage buildingsReview the significance of the place and identify the elements of greatest significanceUndertake an Access Audit to determine existing and required levels of accessibility; noting that some areas are exempt under the NCCEvaluate access options within a Commonwealth Heritage context. This process includes consultation with authorities and approval of the proposed actionPrepare the access policy or action planImplement the necessary action. |\n| ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.11 Planning and coordination\n\nProposing ad-hoc changes can have an adverse impact on the significant values of the place. \nOver time, when these ad-hoc measures are undertaken independently, without coordination, \nplanning or expert advice, they can result in compounding adverse impact on the values of the place.\n\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | A coordinated and planned approach is necessary when proposing changes to Kirribilli House and GardenThe proposed activity should be reviewed within a holistic management framework to avoid adverse impacts resulting fromad-hoc measures. |\n| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.5.12 Stakeholder consultation\n\nEarly consultation with stakeholders is required to comply with the EPBC Regulations when managing heritage places. The EPBC Act requires public notification of a HMP. This consultation process may be undertaken once a final HMP is available. In accordance with the referral assessment process under the EPBC Act, any proposed action that will impact on the heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden must also be notified for public comment.\n\nWhilst works proposed to Kirribilli House do not need to comply with local planning requirements, \nif significant works are proposed, it is recommended that North Sydney Council be informed.\n\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | Relevant stakeholder consultation should be undertaken early as part of managing the heritage place, allowing sufficient time for input in accordance with the EPBC ActThe HMP must be available for public notificationAny proposed action that impacts the heritage values of Kirribilli House must be notified for public commentIf substantial works are proposed, North Sydney Council should be informed as a good neighbour policy. |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\nPlease note that as per Section 1.8.1, public notification and exhibition of the draft HMP were carried out in 2023, prior to the finalisation of this document.\n\n \n\n## 7.6 Security\n\n### 7.6.1 Security and privacy\n\nManagement of Kirribilli House and Garden requires a high level of security and privacy.\n\n| Policy 13. Security and privacy | Elements of this HMP will be made available to government departments and external stakeholders on a need-to-know basisSections of the Heritage Induction Training Manual shall be made available to relevant contractors working on the site (see Appendix P) |\n| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.6.2 Security Infrastructure\n\nHome Affairs are responsible for the security infrastructure at Kirribilli House. The Australian Federal Police provide 24-hour physical security for the site. Extenuating circumstances may result in the disturbance of heritage fabric. The security of the property and the people within it will always outweigh any other requirements.\n\n| Policy 14. Security Infrastructure | Security requirements at Kirribilli House are fundamentally important for the safety and functionality of the house and those who work/live thereInterior security measures, such as distress buttons, are a high security priority. For security reasons they need to be placed in prominent, easily reached locations within the rooms, however whenever possible they should not be inserted into significant fabricWhile security is an essential operational requirement, any changes should be implemented in a way that minimises heritage impact where possible. |\n| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n## 7.7 Site-wide policies\n\n### 7.7.1 Conservation principles\n\nThe Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, known as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013), \nis 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. \nThere are seven principles that guide the care of heritage places:\n\n1\\. The place itself is important\n\n2\\. Understand the significance of the place\n\n3\\. Understand the fabric\n\n4\\. Significance should guide decisions\n\n5\\. Do as much as necessary, as little as possible\n\n6\\. Keep records\n\n7\\. Do everything in a logical order.\n\nThe use of the terms, conservation, preservation, reconstruction, adaptation, fabric, maintenance, repair, and compatible use in this report are defined in The Burra Charter.\n\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | Future work on the complex should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and its GuidelinesThe Commonwealth heritage values of the place should be the basis for all future planning and development. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.2 Setting\n\nThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting is a key contributory element to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden and its landmark qualities. The site is part of a continued landscape that includes Admiralty House on Kirribilli Point. Having met CHL Criterion B, D and E that relates to the setting of the place, it is crucial that the policy below be adopted to protect and maintain the CHL values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 16. Setting | The landmark qualities of Kirribilli House and Garden should be retained and protectedThe picturesque landscape harbourside setting should be retained, protected and promoted. This includes such key elements as the Victorian picturesque qualities (sweeping lawn, meandering paths, dramatic views and wild character), topography, rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs, harbour views and access to waterwayRetain and protect the continuous harbour foreshore landscape that is reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline. |\n| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.3 Streetscape\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to Kirribilli Conservation Area, which has been characterised by a mix of small, medium and substantial late Victorian, Federation era houses with Inter-War dwelling houses and contemporary residential flat buildings on some of the waterfront sites. Buildings are integrated with the slope and generally have a homogenous scale with established gardens. Some earlier Victorian villas survive in Kirribilli Street and Upper Pitt Street. Also located on the waterfront are Kirribilli and Admiralty Houses.\n\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | Kirribilli House and Garden is a contributory item to the Kirribilli Conservation Area, hence contributory elements, including Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture, principal elevations, established garden, integration to topography and homogeneous scale, should all be retained and protected. |\n| ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.4 Significant views\n\nKirribilli House within Kirribilli Point forms part of the broader Sydney Harbour landscape which is appreciated from various vantage points including immediate views from Sydney Harbour (including Fort Dennison), moderate views from Sydney Opera House, Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Garden Island, Kurraba Point and Cremorne Point and distant views from Bradley’s Head.\n\nThere is a harmonious relationship between the house, garden and the wider landscape which is the harbour setting. The site’s geographic position permits extensive harbour views from both the house and garden which include panoramas, framed and filtered views. This contributes to the picturesque setting and is part of the early planning of the site that evidence the key period of significance. Significant views identified have been included in Section 3.2.1 and 3.6 and are defined in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.\n\nFigure 7‑2.\n\n| Policy 18. Significant views | Significant views to and from Kirribilli House and Garden should be maintained and protectedThese include but are not limited to those identified in Figure 7‑1 and Figure 7‑2.Figure 7‑2. |\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of the harbour near Kirribilli House outlining the significant views](image.178.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑1: Significant views to Kirribilli House from various vantage points of Sydney Harbour (maps.six.nsw.gov.au\n\n![A picture of an aerial shot map of Kirribilli House grounds highlighting the significant views seen from the property](image.179.jpeg)\n\nFigure 7‑2: Significant views from Kirribilli House and Garden (maps.six.nsw.gov.au)\n\n### 7.7.5 Heritage curtilage\n\nKirribilli House retains its original physical curtilage which is defined by the existing site boundary. \nThe site has maintained the early subdivision from Admiralty House estate and sold in 1854 to \nAdolph Feez who built the house in 1856. The earliest access to the site is likely to have been from the harbour and the earliest plans included boat access on the eastern boundary. The earliest plans also show access from Kirribilli Avenue.\n\nA visual curtilage can be extended to include vistas from the harbour and beyond from various vantage points.\n\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | The physical curtilage defined by the existing site boundary including access to the foreshore and Kirribilli Avenue should be retained and protectedA visual curtilage that includes vantage points of Kirribilli House and Garden from the harbourside should be retained protected. |\n| ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.6 Masterplans\n\nKirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House are major elements of Kirribilli Point that form part of the continuous Sydney Harbour landscape. There are both built and natural elements from both sites that are historically significant which should be preserved and promoted. Developing a masterplan will assist in identifying areas for future development, planning and maintenance of the site and minimise any detrimental effects from ad-hoc activities.\n\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | When opportunity presents, undertake one masterplan for Kirribilli House and Garden and Admiralty House to guide future works. Include a study of the historical development of the site architectural style, massing, geometry/axis, vistas, and circulation (vehicular/pedestrian) studies. The plan should include a review of existing infrastructure/services and develop a site wide methodology for implementing new work. The plan should identify areas of future development including scale, height, massing and materials for potential future development. The masterplan should include a landscape masterplan that incorporates both sites as one landscape element of Kirribilli PointWhen opportunity presents, provide a detailed and updated version of the current Landscape Management Plan for Kirribilli House(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) to include the heritage significance of areas of the garden, identify specific historic elements relating to significance, consolidate information fromGeoff Britton’s landscape assessment (Design 5, 2010: Appendix H) and the AECOM Tree Survey, 2023Using the above information, compile a detailed landscape design for the garden with clear heritage and design principles for each garden areaThe landscape masterplan/updated Landscape Management Plan should study water drainage and succession planting to re-establish the lost tree canopies. It should also identify plant species on site that have high water consumption and propose alternative sub-species (whilst retaining the heritage values) that are more resilient. It should also consider reducing the ongoing erosion of the sandstone cliffA qualified heritage architect, heritage landscape architect and relevant service consultants should be engaged to undertake this workThis HMP should be updated in the next review to include findings from the masterplan and the updated Landscape Management Plan. |\n| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.7 Grounds generally\n\nThe garden at Kirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Vestiges of the pre-European landscape, Phase 1 –19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the grounds generally.\n\n| Policy 21. Grounds generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:- Vestiges of the pre-European landscape evidenced in the indigenous vegetation, rock outcrops, and sandstone cliffs, reminiscent of the early Port Jackson shoreline- Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of thePeople-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque qualities, sweeping lawn, meandering stone paths, terracing, dry stone walling, fencing, dramatic views(panoramic, framed and filtered) and floristic (leaf form, colour, and texture).- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the plantings associated with significant people- Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the instruction of terracing, steps, trees, and plants (exotic and native)Retain a high quality of garden maintenance by engaging trade professionals with proven experience in horticulture, garden maintenance and heritage gardensEngage arborists as required to manage the health and safety of older treesPrior to removal and pruning of trees consider impacts to significant views (panoramas, framed and filtered)Do not introduce new structures in the garden except for temporary structures such as marquees and climbing framesDo not introduce new garden beds or new species of plants to the site unless implemented by a landscape masterplan or management planKeep a record of plants that have been part of memorials, functions, planted or gifted by dignitariesBuilt memorials should be avoided in the garden to retain the Victorian style and residential significance of the place. Australian artwork/sculptures may be incorporated if they are sympathetic to the significance of the placeOutdoor furniture, fixtures and fittings should be sympathetic of the heritage values of the place. Retain cast iron urns and sundialsRetain and repair as necessary the boundary fences to the sitePrior to implementing the Landscape Management Plan(Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, 2020) for detailed works to hard and soft landscaping, resolve the inconsistencies of heritage landscape principles from Geoff Britton’s assessments updated information from AECOM’s Tree Survey 2023 through a landscape masterplan/detailed management plan or landscape design. |\n| ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.8 House generally\n\nKirribilli House is significant as it evidences the key historic phases; Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment), Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 \n(Government resumption) and Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister). Detailed policies relating to contributory elements of the garden relating to each phase are included in Section 7.8. The following policies are aimed at conserving the house generally.\n\n| Policy 22. House generally | Retain and protect contributory elements from each key historic phase according to their level of significance. Key elements include:Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920 (Pleasures of the People-Society, Culture and Entertainment) evidenced in the picturesque setting, modest scale, irregular massing, steeply pitched gabled roofs with highly decorated bargeboards, prominent gable, gabled dormer, slate roof, textured masonry walling, bay windows, timber verandah and tall medieval looking chimneys, fireplaces, timber joinery- Phase 2 – 1920 to 1956 (Government resumption) evidenced in the single storey addition (wet), bay window replacements to double hung window, gabled roof, and room to first floor, hallway widened, addition of bathrooms, garagePhase 3 – 1957 to 2023 (Official residence of the Prime Minister) evidenced in the service wing, single storey additions to either side of porch, replacement of shutters, verandah infill for storeroom, timber valence reconstruction, security screens, eastern gable windows, main stair reconstruction, and conservation worksConserve and promote the relationship of the house to the garden such as verandahs and garden elementsRetain and protect the internal arrangement of spaces, inter-relationships of rooms and volumes of spacesRetain and conserve the hierarchy of public and private spacesThe house may be altered to suit the function as an Official Prime Minister’s Residence whilst respecting the heritage values of the placeNew work should not replicate previous styles but be of a contemporary style and sympathetic to the heritage values of the placeReconstruction works should be identifiable through subtle variation in detail and should be dated. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.9 Maintenance and repair\n\nSystematic maintenance will conserve significant fabric longer for the ultimate benefit of future generations. A site wide maintenance plan is provided in Section 8.0.\n\n| Policy 23. Maintenance | Implement the General Maintenance Plan included in this HMP in accordance with the policies contained in this HMPThe maintenance plan should be adopted by JLL under their contractual obligationsThe maintenance plan should be integrated into the PM&C asset maintenance processes. A Heritage Asset works/maintenance record should also be prepared and maintained for each activityPrior to undertaking any maintenance works, confirmed that the activity proposed is maintenance and complies with the policies an in this HMP. This should be confirmed by PM&CA dedicated budget should be implemented to guide on-going maintenance work on the significant elements identified in this HMPAdequate funding arrangements for maintenance and urgent repairs identified in this HMP should be put in placeIncrease rate of maintenance following inclement weather such as high winds and storms. Inspect all weatherproofing elements of the buildingsEnsure all contractors are made aware of the heritage values of the place by providing the Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P) to all contractors on site.Undertake a structural condition assessment of the site every five years by a qualified structural engineer. |\n| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.10 Emergency Works\n\nEmergency works should always be undertaken as a priority, wherever possible they should seek to be completely reversible. Emergency works (such as rectifying storm damage, repairing water leaks or attending electrical malfunctions) are a necessary aspect of managing the maintenance, safety and condition of Kirribilli House. By their very nature, they often have to be undertaken quickly with little planning. If works occur (due to safety or security reasons) that are not sympathetic, such work should be ‘undone’ as soon as practicable.\n\n| Policy 24. Emergency Works | Emergency works must always be undertaken as quickly as possible.Any emergency works should be recorded by PM&C, with the issue, condition prior to repairs and condition after repairs (including photographs) recorded as a minimum.PM&C, as the agency responsible for contractors carrying out emergency works to the fixed building elements, should be notified as soon as possible to inspect the temporary repairs and decide on a more permanent solution.All emergency works should be reversible whenever possible. |\n| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.11 Climate change, sustainability, and resilience\n\nSustainable and resilient methods are required to manage the adverse effects of climate change. The skilled craftsmanship and composition of old materials result in heritage buildings that are durable. The re-use of existing buildings and fabric reduces the embodied energy required for new development. Hence, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings should be considered as a first measure before new development is considered. An energy audit/thermal assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden will identify areas energy expenditure.\n\nThe Australian Public Service (APS) must comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy. APS Net Zero will be achieved by actively reducing emissions from APS operations as well as through offsets. This initiative will also encourage transparency by requiring Commonwealth entities to publicly report on their emissions, whilst supporting the uplift of climate capability across the APS.\n\nExtreme weather patterns in the future mean that there will be periods of extreme drought and wet weather as well as erratic events and increased climate induced disasters. Environmental factors specific to Kirribilli House and Garden in the future include:\n\n- Increase in ambient humidity levels and condensation within buildings leading to mould and damp\n- Dry weather patterns creating shrinking of fabric and cracks to structure\n- Intense rainfalls and storms causing inefficient water drainage from buildings and areas of the garden, damage to property\n- Long periods of rain\n- The existing rising damp conditions to worsen.\n\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience(a) Assessments/audits | Comply with the APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030 policy.Should the opportunity arise, undertake the following assessments/audits:- Undertake an initial and periodic energy, water and thermal comfort assessment of Kirribilli House and Garden to identify areas of deficiencies, ideally over a year (to account for season)- Assess the existing ventilation in buildings and implement methods of improvement to minimise humidity in buildings e.g., sub floor ventilation- Assess rain and surface water runoff across the whole site and in buildings. This may include installing sensors to measure ground moisture. Implement improvements especially during torrential rainfall events- Assess the viability of measures to reduce water and energy consumption in the garden (additional rainwater tanks, automatic watering, solar powered garden lights, drought tolerant plants and grasses). |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (b) Implementation | Implement low impact measures sympathetic to heritage values such as upgrades to fittings and fixtures (e.g., light fittings, water closets, taps) and services (air conditioning units, gas fireplaces)Increase the rate of maintenance to existing buildings during periods of extreme weather eventsPromote adaptive reuse of buildings. Demonstrate and exhaust all other measures to ensure existing buildings are used efficiently prior to constructing new buildings and structuresSolar panels should be avoided on the main house structure to avoid impact on significant views of the house. Solar panels may be installed on the laundry building if an HIA has determined that physical and visual impacts are minimal. The works will require permission from OOSGGNew work/developments should incorporate sustainable design and construction methodsUndertake any catch-up maintenance activities. Ensure that cyclical maintenance and emergency maintenance are activated immediately. |\n| (c) Management plans | Develop a Sustainability Action Plan for the site and include all sustainability measures. Include a risk register and identify risks to heritage elements including loss of heritage significant plant species, loss of lawns, property damage from high winds, erosion impact to garden, risk to heritage fabric from damage, increase in pests and diseases in garden. Include measures to educate staff, contractors on creating an awareness of sustainability issues.Develop and implement a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the site that identifies potential risks to the site and its heritage values to prepare Kirribilli House and Garden for future events. This plan should identify elements of the site that maybe sacrificial losses. |\n\n### 7.7.12 Indigenous cultural management\n\nIt is recognised that Kirribilli House and Garden is located within a larger cultural landscape of high social, cultural, and spiritual significance for Indigenous peoples and will apply a precautionary approach to the management of heritage values.\n\n| Policy 26. General | The overarching aim for the management of the Indigenous heritage values should be done in partnership with Indigenous stakeholders.Consider the preparation of an interpretation strategy covering intangible Indigenous heritage values in the context of the broader intangible cultural landscape. This should be undertaken with Indigenous consultation.Indigenous stakeholders should be consulted regarding any potential impacts if any Indigenous heritage values are identified in relation to Kirribilli House and Garden. Consultation, in all instances, should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Ask First Guidelines.Should a plan be formulated for the management of the garden, there may be an opportunity for consideration to be given to Indigenous plantings to be added to the existing landscape, to allow for interpretation of the history of the location. Such a garden plan should be guided by the findings of the interpretation strategy and the consultation outcomes of the intangible cultural landscape values. |\n| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nPrior to commencement of any new development activities/works within Kirribilli House and Garden, all relevant site personnel and contractors should be made aware of Indigenous heritage values. The discovery of unexpected Indigenous heritage should trigger ”Stop Works” as detailed in Policy 27.\n\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | Unexpected Indigenous Heritage Finds Procedure (excluding human skeletal remains)1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the artefact/site must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing).2. Notification - The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management about the discovery and seek advice.3. Impact Assessment - If required, undertake an assessment for the proposed activity/works in accordance with relevant heritage guidelines.4. Impact Mitigation - Implement management actions detailed in the assessment.5. Reporting - Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the new site and any implemented management actions.Unexpected Human Skeletal Remains Procedure - For any confirmed or suspected human skeletal remains, the following procedure should be followed:1. Discovery - All activity within a 10 m buffer of the remains must stop immediately. Works can proceed outside of the buffer so long as the site is left in situ and protected from harm (e.g., through temporary high visibility fencing). The remains must not be left unattended.2. Notification: The contractor and/or stakeholder responsible for undertaking the activity must notify management of the discovery. They, in turn, must notify the Coroner’s Office and the Military Police, who will notify appropriate local authorities. If it is confirmed by these authorities that the remains are Indigenous Ancestral Remains, they should, as soon as practicable, report the existence of the remains to Indigenous stakeholders and relevant State-based heritage authorities.3. Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Management should consult with Indigenous stakeholders and an appropriately experienced and qualified heritage consultant. In general, the first management option should be avoidance of the location. If this is not possible, then relocation of the remains to a designated keeping place, or reburial at a location near to the original (but within an area that will not be impacted) should be undertaken. The wishes of the Indigenous stakeholders should guide these actions. The excavation and handling of any Indigenous skeletal remains should follow best practice scientific guidelines (e.g., NSW Heritage Office, 1998).4. GEMS Update:- Update GEMS to reflect the presence of the remains and implemented management actions. |\n| --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nConsider the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process, acknowledging security and safety constraints.\n\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | Kirribilli House and Garden is an active, high security area with access needing to be arranged in advance through appropriate personnel, with all visitors subject to security clearance and induction processes. Existing security and induction procedures notwithstanding, should Indigenous values be identified in the future, the development of a standard Indigenous stakeholder access process should then be developed, which could potentially provide approval for on-site cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies. In general, should any interested Indigenous community members wish to enter for cultural reasons, they should contact the appropriate management contact who should facilitate the visit. |\n| ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\nIndigenous stakeholders should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any public disclosures pertaining to the Indigenous heritage values of Kirribilli House and Garden.\n\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | The investigation of intangible Indigenous cultural heritage values, and in the event that finds occur during future works, may result in the identification of Indigenous values relating to Kirribilli House and Garden. Should information regarding such Indigenous heritage values be proposed for release into the public domain, Indigenous stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on any disclosures prior to their release. All comments received should be considered and inform the final disseminated disclosure. |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.13 Services\n\nThe insertion of any new services should be carefully considered and consider the original structure and fabric of the heritage buildings to minimise impact.\n\n| Policy 30. Services | Services should be minimised in their extent and carefully planned to minimise damage to significant fabricNew, replacement and upgraded services should use existing conduits and ducts wherever possibleCeiling-mounted fittings, such as detectors and light fittings with minimal fixings are recommendedSurface-mounted vertical risers are permitted, provided their style and finish is compatible with the cultural significance of the space through which they pass. Wherever possible, vertical risers should be in minor spaces of least cultural significanceLight fittings and electrical accessories (switch plates, GPOs) should not be period reproductions but discrete modern fixturesAir-conditioning units should be discreet in location and appearance. Any associated works should be positioned to avoid damage to significant fabricExternal air-conditioning units should be concealed from view, not located on the front façade of the building, and positioned to avoid damage to significant external fabric. |\n| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n### 7.7.14 Archaeological monitoring\n\nAreas of high archaeological potential have been identified at the subject site. If excavation is proposed in these areas, further investigation by a suitably qualified archaeologist would be required prior to commencement of works.\n\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | Any excavation in areas of high archaeological potential should be carried out under archaeological supervision by a qualified archaeologistIf underfloor deposits are planned to be removed, engage an archaeologist to remove and assess to determine the presence of any artefactsIn the event of uncovering any unexpected item or archaeological deposit, implement an unexpected finds procedure must be followed (see Figure 4‑27). |\n| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n### 7.7.15 Carparking and circulation\n\nThe site has limited potential for incorporating carparking and vehicular access without impacting on the garden setting of the site. The driveway loop originates from the Phase 3 – 1957 to 2023 \n(Official Residence of the Prime Minister) and is graded as an item of moderate significance, \nhence may be modified for future requirements.\n\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | An increase to the number of carparking spaces currently provided is not recommended i.e., spaces for permanent garaged vehicles and informal parking of cars on drivewayThe driveway loop may be modified for future carparking and vehicular access but must have little to no impact on the garden setting. |\n| ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.16 Public access\n\nThere is limited public access due to security and privacy reasons. However, the site holds many functions where large number of people can attend the site at any one time. Open days of the house and garden are also held. It is important that the heritage significance of the site is communicated, and significant fabric is protected during these times by implementing a Visitor Management Strategy.\n\n| Policy 33. Public access | Undertake and implement a Visitor Management Strategy for the site.Public open days should occur every year however the level at which the property is open to the public should be decided in conjunction with the incumbentsAt a minimum the grounds should be open for inspection during open daysCare should be taken to protect artworks and furniture during open daysInterpretative materials should be available on the day |\n| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.17 Archival recording\n\nAn archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved for removal should be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage specialist in accordance with the Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, \nrevised 2006) guideline. The record should aim to capture the item prior to, during and after the proposed works. A copy of the archival record be provided to the local council and the NLA.\n\nCurrently there are several sites that hold vast amount of historical information relating to the site including, State Records, NLA, State Library of NSW, Stanton Library and PM&C. This information should be consolidated, and a central repository of information should be established.\n\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | Undertake an archival photographic record of any fabric or equipment that is proposed and approved to be demolished. The works should comply with Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (Heritage Office 2001, revised 2006) guidelineProvide a copy of the archival record to PM&C, council and NLA(with redacted information on security)Establish a central repository of information of historical data. |\n| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.18 Movable items\n\nThere are several movable items associated with Kirribilli House and Garden. These include a wide variety of furniture, art and memorabilia predominantly lent and managed by the Australian Fund (see detailed identification, care and management set out in the catalogue by Australian Fund, The Australian Fund, 2022). Additional items found on site should be assessed and recorded by suitably qualified persons and conserved on site or protected in off-site storage.\n\n| Policy 35. Movable items | The existing management practice and collaboration with Australian Fund and PM&C should continueIf additional moveable items are found, they should be identified and assessed by a suitably qualified person and conserved on site, or protected in an off-site storage facilityMovable items should be assessed for suitability for incorporation in an Interpretation Plan for the site. |\n| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.19 Heritage interpretation\n\nThere is an opportunity for the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden to be promoted to the public by undertaking an Interpretation Strategy. The strategy should be prepared by a heritage consultant and appropriately funded. This strategy should include consideration of security and safety requirements whilst communicating the heritage significance of the site.\n\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | An Interpretation Strategy should be prepared for Kirribilli House and Garden by a suitably qualified heritage consultantThe Interpretation Strategy should consider privacy, safety, and security requirements of the siteConsider the use of wide range of media, digital, paper, physical (signage, fabric) and sensory elements (e.g., textured materials in the garden and soundscapes)Include associations with significant people for the house as well as the garden (include signage adjacent to significant plants).Consider displaying historic photographsIncorporate any oral histories (e.g., descendants of the Feez family, former Prime Ministers)Include Indigenous heritage values and consult with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal parties.If there is an opportunity, undertake an Indigenous Intangible Cultural Values study and to incorporate reference to Indigenous past in the garden through a cohesive approach.An Indigenous Interpretation Strategy may be prepared as a separate documentCreate a unified and consistent style, sympathetic to the heritage aesthetic of the site, for interpretation of the site e.g., style of fonts and colours for signs. |\n| ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.7.20 Signage and external lighting\n\nThere is limited signage on site that is in keeping with the residential character of the site. There is also a mixture of light fittings in the house and garden with majority of fittings originating from the 1957 modifications and some reproduced Victorian lamps.\n\nSignage and external lighting can add to the character of the site. Signage and lighting should not adversely affect the significant heritage fabric and overall character of the site. When installing signage, the fixings should be reversible and not damage significant fabric.\n\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | Should the opportunity, arise develop a complex-wide signage and external lighting plan for the site.Signage and lighting should be in harmony with the historic character of the site and compliant with current Australian health and safety standardsFree standing signage systems should be used for major directional signs, with smaller signs applied to selected areas with a minimum of fixingsSigns should not be attached to the brickwork walls of the buildingsIf the opportunity arises, a lighting designer or architect should be engaged to undertake a site wide study of existing lighting to the house and garden, and propose a lighting plan that is a contemporary design and sympathetic to the heritage values of the siteIncorporate sustainable lighting practices. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.8 Contributory elements\n\nContributory elements (tangible and intangible) to the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden have been identified in Table 5‑3: Schedule of significant (contributory) elements. \nThese elements are essential to the significance of the place and should be conserved according to the following policies.\n\n| Policy 38 | |\n| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (1) Curtilage | See policy 7.7.5. |\n| (2) Relationship to Admiralty House | Conserve and protect views to Admiralty House and key elements within its gardenRetain the existing access points at the western boundary. |\n| (3) Views and vistas to Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (4) Views and vistas from Kirribilli House | See policy 7.7.4 |\n| (5) Pre-European vestiges | Retain and protect features of the pre-European landscape including, plantings, rock outcrops and sandstone cliffs. |\n| (6) Entrance gates, stone walls, and fences | Retain and conserve stone walls and wrought iron gates.Consider replacing the side entry gate to an interpreted detail of the early gate from 1913 (Figure 5-11Figure 5‑6)Fencing to the northern boundary may be altered to interpret earlier detailsThe fencing along the boundary to Admiralty House may be altered to a more open style of fence to interpret the connection between the two sites. |\n\n \n\n| (7) Driveway, driveway loop and entrance forecourt | An entry precinct that is grand and in keeping with the Victorian themed garden style should be retainedPlant species should be sourced from available archival sources of the Victorian eraThe entry drive should not be increased in area for future useAn updated Landscape Management Plan should review the significance of the species of camellias to confirm their association with the work of Professor E G WaterhouseA Landscape Management Plan should seek to undertake further research and gain expert opinion are required to confirm appropriateness of the Jacaranda trees on the site. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| (8) Upper eastern grassed banks and terraces | The steep grassed banks should be retained and existing view preserved. |\n| (9) Lower eastern lawn terrace and eastern walk | The steep grassed banks of the lower terrace should be retained as an open space permitting views to the harbour and views to the house from the harbourPlantings to the south should be consistent with the Victorian eraOpportunities for reinstating Indigenous vegetation should be investigated. |\n| (10) Northeast gardens and walks | The sandstone outcrops should be retained and not concealedThe meandering paths should be retainedPlantings should be appropriate to the Victorian era and should also address loss of privacy to the northern boundary from tree lossThe poorly executed sandstone paving on north-eastern and lower grounds should be reviewed. |\n| (11) Northeastern terrace | The stone wall and paving should be reconstructed with a rustic theme, providing a focus for the existing rock outcropCourses should follow the horizontal bias with no vertical elementsPlantings should be consistent with the Victorian era, promote Indigenous vegetation, provide privacy, and retain filtered views. |\n| (12) Clifftop garden | The wild character of the garden should be retained without impeding on viewsThe safety aspects of the garden should be reviewedIndigenous vegetation should be promoted. |\n| (13) Foreshore and cliffs | The foreshore and cliff line with sandstone face should be retainedIndigenous plantings should be promotedSafety and design of the access pathways that lead to the boat harbour and bathing pool below should be reviewed. |\n| (14) Harbourside ruins | The boat harbour, bathing pool, boatsheds and retaining walls should be retained and conservedAn archival record of existing structures should be undertakenFurther physical studies of this area should be undertakenExisting retaining walls should be stabilised |\n| (15) Southern lawn terrace and rockeries | The stone flagged areas, rockeries, and terraces should be retained and conservedThe steel pipe handrail should be upgraded to comply with current access codes. |\n| (16) Western garden including hedged lawn and kitchen garden | The hedged lawn and kitchen garden should be retained and conserved |\n| (17) Paths and stairs | Existing paths and stairs should be retainedA landscape masterplan should study existing paths and stairs and propose a plan considering hierarchy of paths, detailing of edging, consolidation, and cohesive palette of materialsrandom stone paving to lower areas should be removed and replaced with bitumenThe drainage of paths away from the building line should be ensured |\n| (18) Significant trees | All significant trees and plants identified in this HMP and Landscape Management Plan should be retained and protected.A program for succession of identified plantings should be undertaken, particularly to address loss of tree canopy and privacy along Kirribilli Avenue. |\n| (19) Victorian Rustic Gothic style features | The stylistic features of the Victorian Rustic Gothic architecture should be retained, protected and conserved. |\n| (20) North elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe entry porch in its current configuration should be retained. Steps may be altered but should remain symmetrical to the porchDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (21) East elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in its current configuration should be retained, including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (22) South elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedThe verandah in current configuration should be retained including existing doors and windowsDo not introduce new openings to nineteenth century wallsThe timber storeroom may be removed, and the original verandah may be reinstated. |\n| (23) West elevation | All pre-1957 fabric should be retained and conservedRoom and gabled roof over the northwest corner of building should be retainedSingle storey parapet wing may be removed or alteredThe service wing may be removed or alteredThe awning entry may be removed or alteredDo not introduce new openings to 19th Century walls. |\n| (24) Roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods | The roof, chimneys, and rainwater goods should be retained and conservedIf required install, safety anchors on internal slopes. |\n| (25) Masonry walls | Masonry walls and associated elements should be retained and conservedRepairs and conservation work to masonry walls should follow traditional repair methodsDo not use cement render on pre-1950s wallsPaint finish should be retained. |\n| (26) Verandah | The verandah and associated elements should be retained and conservedDo not infill any part of the verandahStoreroom/infill to verandah may be retained or removedFuture replacement of roof should be corrugated copper. |\n| (27) Entry porch including front doors | The entry porch and doors should be retained and conservedThe entry steps may be altered but the symmetry and stone fabric should be retainedThe front doors may be relocated to its original location. The doorframe and fanlight should be retainedStone flagging to interior may be replaced with unglazed tessellated tile. |\n| (28) Bay window including parapet and flat roof | The bay window and its elements should be retained and conserved |\n| (29) French doors | The French doors and associated elements including hardware should be retained and conservedReinstatement of the earlier narrow doors to eastern elevation is not requiredSteel security doors have been designed sympathetically to the doors and should be retainedDo not modify early doors to include double glazing. |\n| (30) Windows | The early casement windows, Gothic windows (porch) and multi-paned double hung windows should be retained and conservedAssociated elements including hardware should be retainedDo not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (31) Shutters | The early shutters (pre-1957) should be retained and conservedShutters of later date may be removed or modified.Do not modify early windows to include double glazing. |\n| (32) Post 1950s additions | Additions may be retained or demolishedIf removed, the original details of the walls should be reinstated. |\n| (33) Service wing | Service wing may be retained or demolished. |\n| (34) Entry hall including Entry lobby | The entry hall and lobby in its current configuration should be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (35) Drawing room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating original wall between roomsSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (36) Dining room | Should be retained in its current configuration without reinstating the opening size between dining and drawing roomSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (37) Prime Minister’s study | Should be retained in its current configurationThe glass doors to the east may be retainedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (38) Green room | Should be retained in its current configurationShelving to either side of fireplace may be altered or removed and former door in this area may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (39) Hallways and stairs | Should be retained in its current configurationThe narrow hall should not be reinstated at ground floorSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (40) Family room | Should be retained in its current configurationSignificant features should be protected and conserved |\n| (41) Bedrooms | Should be retained in its current configurationFireplace may be reinstatedSignificant features should be protected and conserved. |\n| (42) Bathrooms | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (43) Spaces in service wing | Internal spaces and finishes may be modified and reconfigured as required. |\n| (44) Internal joinery, including doors, architraves, and skirtings | All pre-1950s joinery should be retained and conserved in situ to reflect the different periods of developmentWhere joinery is polished, polish finish should be retained and not painted overConservation works should consider reinstating the polished/grained finish to early joinery. |\n| (45) Services | See 7.7.12 |\n| (46) Garage | The garage may be altered internally. |\n| (47) Guard house | The meandering paths should be retainedThe guard house may be altered or demolished. |\n| (48) Storeroom | The storeroom may be altered or demolished. |\n| (49) Moveable items | See 7.7.18 |\n\n## 7.9 New work\n\n### 7.9.1 Adaptive re-use\n\nKirribilli House and Garden was constructed as a residence in 1856 and used as a residence during the key period of significance Phase 1 – 19th Century to 1920. The site has continued its residential function when it became the Official Sydney Residence of the Prime Minister in 1957, hence the current use is consistent with the historical significance of the site. The residential use is evidenced in the planning of the house and garden as well as its physical fabric.\n\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | The most compatible use for Kirribilli House and Garden is a residential useKirribilli House and Garden should be retained as an Official Sydney Establishment of the Prime Minister and its ownership continued by the CommonwealthBefore considering adaptive re-use an assessment should be made of the compatibility of new use to the site’s historical function, potential loss of associations with prime ministerial roles and potential impacts (physical and visual) on heritage significanceFuture adaptive reuse should also consider hierarchy of public and private use of parts of the site and where feasible allowing public access. |\n| ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.2 New development, additions and infills\n\nThe original house built in 1856 was located on the smoothed platform above the rock outcrop centred on the site. The house was extended to the west in the latter two phases. Minor infills and extension to the house have occurred also taken place during this time. Outbuildings were located as a garden structure on the central garden area, to the west of the site and harbourside structures to the eastern boundary. There is opportunity to restore the ruins of the harbourside structures. Modifications or replacement of the service wing from 1957 is possible. Elsewhere on the site, there is limited opportunity for development without potential impact to heritage significance. Any development of the laundry building which is owned by OOSG has potential to impact the heritage significance of Kirribilli House and Garden. There is additional opportunity for development if the site was consolidated with Admiralty House (investigated in Kirribilli House Master Plan Report (Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd, 1981). Opportunities should be considered through a new masterplan study.\n\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | There is minimal opportunity for new development, additions and infills at Kirribilli House and GardenUse of existing spaces should be maximised prior to considering alternatives to developAll other opportunities that have little or no impacts to heritage values should be exhausted prior to considering new developmentRestoration of the harbourside structures should be considered.There is opportunity to modify or replace the service wing from 1957New development should consider the existing architectural style, forms and masses and ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic and do not compete with the Rustic Victorian character of the placeNew work should adopt the principle of reversibility to mitigate potential impactsNew work should use high quality of materials |\n| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.9.3 Changes to function of spaces\n\nKirribilli House and Garden is not a static house museum and it should continue to evolve with each incumbent as the requirements for its use change. Changes to the historical uses, however, should be carefully assessed for compatibility of spaces and only implemented once all other options have been investigated and discarded.\n\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | Change of use to spaces are permissibleAreas of low significance have high tolerance and flexibility for changesAreas of high significance have low tolerance and flexibility and compatible uses should be first considered before considering options. |\n| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n## 7.10 Conservation in accordance with significance\n\nMuch of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House is embodied in the physical fabric of the place. Section 5.4.1 of this HMP sets out the grading scale for significant elements ranging from those elements of exceptional significance down to those that are intrusive. It follows that conservation action should be related to an element’s relative level of significance. Grading of significant fabric in each element/building is included in 5.4.3 and guidelines for managing change are identified in Section 5.4.2.\n\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | Much of the cultural significance of Kirribilli House and Garden is embodied in the physical elements and fabric of the place. Conservation action should be related to the elements or fabric’s level of significanceAny repair, conservation or reconstruction works to significant elements or facades must be undertaken with appropriate direction by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, architect and/or relevant materials specialist/s or conservator and with reference to historical documentation. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n \n\n## 7.11 Conservation of Materials\n\n### 7.11.1 Traditional materials\n\nKirribilli House and Garden consists of several traditional materials including slate, lead, copper, sandstone, brick, cast iron and timber.\n\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | A heritage architect should be engaged to undertake works and provide advice on to traditional materialsWhen repairing or altering traditional materials, a qualified and experienced traditional trades contractor should be engaged to undertake the work or supervise the work. |\n| -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.2 Reconstruction\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has many details that are missing or have been undertaken in an inappropriate manner. When these works are proposed to be reconstructed, the work should be based on documentary evidence of an earlier state.\n\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | Reconstruction is appropriate only where an element is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the elementReconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection. |\n| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.3 Colour schemes and finishes\n\nWhen repainting, the choice of paint colours should be based on an understanding of original colours and finishes used – through documentary and analysis of physical evidence (e.g., paint scrapes). \nIf repainting is required, original colour schemes should be re-instated for significant elements. \nA colour palette and interior design advice was provided in the 2016 HMP and should be used to guide future works.\n\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | Refer to Kirribilli House – Colour Palette and Interior Design Heritage Advice, Appendix O. |\n| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.4 Previous inappropriate conservation methods\n\nThere are areas of the site that have been inappropriately repaired or conserved. These include the cement mortar repairs to masonry and conservation works where details are exact replicas. \nWhen opportunity arises, undertake works to remedy areas. Works should be prioritised and only those items identified as intrusive should be modified.\n\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | When practical, previous inappropriate repair and conservation methods should be remedied with the use of traditional methods according to priority. |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n### 7.11.5 Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP\n\nThis HMP should be reviewed every five years and considered for full update every ten years or when large-scale changes are proposed that are not considered in this HMP. The implementation of the HMP should also be reviewed every five years.\n\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | This HMP should be reviewed every five years (or when large-scale changes are proposed that have not already been considered in this HMP)This HMP should be reviewed every ten years and considered for a full update.The implementation of the HMP should be reviewed every five years (assessing works priorities, if the HMP is actually implementing the policies and strategies, and the condition of the place and the condition of its listed Commonwealth Heritage values – see table below).These reviews should be documented as reports with findings and actions clearly documented, |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n```html\n

Commonwealth Heritage Values

Reporting and monitoring

Criterion A - Processes – Attributes: The fabric and form of the house

When reviews are undertaken on the effectiveness of the implementation of the HMP policies, these should be applied to the Commonwealth heritage values through a qualitative assessment of the retention of the attributes listed against each relevant criterion (A, B, D, E, G and H). The success in retaining these attributes and thus the associated values that reside in them should be documented as reports with clearly stated findings and actions.

Criterion B - Rarity – Attributes: The house, its curtilage and relationship to the harbour

Criterion D - Characteristic values – Attributes: The building's form, its external styling and details, and its early and original fabric

Criterion E - Aesthetic characteristics – Attributes:

The architectural appearance of the building, its landscape setting and relationship to the harbour

Criterion G - Social value – Attributes: The house in its garden setting, plus the occasional public open days

Criterion H - Significant people – Attributes: The whole of the building, both internally and externally

\n```\n\n \n\n### 7.11.6 Knowledge gap analysis\n\nA review of reports for the site has identified knowledge gaps. Opportunities should be sought for these to be addressed as part of future investigations and assessments.\n\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | Opportunities should be sought to fill the following knowledge gaps:The heritage significance of the site predominantly lies in the Victorian era and there is insufficient representation of this evidence in the documentary and physical analysisAlthough there are several floor plans available for the site, the original house plans are yet to be locatedDiscussion of the significance of the pool and remnant boat shed ruinsDiscussion of the shared history of Admiralty House and the site and why the two sites are separately listedDemonstration of the wider landscape context of the harbour setting of the site and critical views and vistasConfirmation of the position and detail of the original staircaseThe detail of the original front doorThe detail of the original bay window on the eastern elevationThe early detail of the door(s) in the south wall of StudyThe detail of the original verandahThe detailing of the c.1860s verandah columns and bracketDetails of the original drawing room windowsThe early use of some of the spaces in the building c.1856-1880The exact position, configuration and use of the early outbuildings, c.1856-1920The position and thickness of some early internal walls, c.1856-1920Specific details about internal decoration, including some chimney pieces and gratesThe detail and configuration of the boat sheds and original staircase down to harbourDetails of original fencing and gates, |\n| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n\n \n\n| Policy | Responsibility | Priority | Timing |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- |\n| Policy 1. Adoption and review of HMP | PM&C to adopt and implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 2. Change in Ownership or Lease | PM&C to notify, review and consult | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 3. Expert advice | PM&C to engage appropriate experts | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 4. Training and resources | PM&C to induct | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 5. Roles and responsibilities | All stakeholders | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 6. Internal approval and record keeping | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 7. Legislative approvals process | PM&C to manage | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 8. NCC and DDA compliance | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 9:Saftey | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 10: Access for people with a disability | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 11. Planning and coordination | PM&C to plan and coordinate | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 12. Stakeholder consultation | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 13. Security | PM&C to provide | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 14 Security infrastructure | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 15. Burra Charter and principles of conservation | PM&C to ensure | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 16. Setting | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 17. Streetscape | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 18. Significant views | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 19. Heritage curtilage | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 20. Masterplans | PM&C to undertake | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 21-23. Grounds generally / House generally / Maintenance | PM&C to retain and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 24 Emergency works policy | PM&C to undertake | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 25. Climate change, sustainability, and resilience | PM&C to ensure compliance | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 26. General | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 27. Unforeseen Indigenous heritage discovery | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 28. Indigenous stakeholder process | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 29. Review and comment on public disclosures regarding Indigenous heritage values | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 30. Services | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 31. Archaeological monitoring | PM&C to engage appropriate specialists | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 32. Carparking and circulation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 33. Public access | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 34. Archival recording | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 35. Movable items | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 36. Interpretation | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 37. Signage and external lighting | PM&C to develop | Medium | 0-5 years |\n| Policy 38. | PM&C to conserve and protect | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 39. Adaptive reuse | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 40. New development, additions and infills | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 41. Changes to function of spaces | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 42. Conservation in accordance with significance | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 43. Traditional materials | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 44. Reconstruction | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 45. Colour schemes and finishes | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 46. Previous inappropriate conservation methods | PM&C to implement | High | 0-1 year |\n| Policy 47. Heritage reporting on the review and implementation of the HMP | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-10 years |\n| Policy 48. Knowledge gap analysis | PM&C to implement | Medium | 0-5 years |\n\n## 7.12 Implementation plan\n\nThe following implementation plan should be utilised for the policies listed above.\n\n \n\n# 8.0 Maintenance Schedule\n\n## 8.1 Introduction\n\nRegular, on-going inspection and maintenance is vital to the longevity of heritage buildings and to preserve their heritage significance. The following section provides the required catch up maintenance, a cyclical inspection and maintenance schedule.\n\n## 8.2 Catch-up Maintenance\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been well maintained, resulting in a good overall condition. Conservation of the exterior stonework has been carried out within the last five years. A few catch-up maintenance items were noted. Cleaning of the exterior has been added to the maintenance schedule in Section 8.3.","sortOrder":187},{"sectionNumber":"8.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Introduction","content":"## 8.1 Introduction\n\nRegular, on-going inspection and maintenance is vital to the longevity of heritage buildings and to preserve their heritage significance. The following section provides the required catch up maintenance, a cyclical inspection and maintenance schedule.","sortOrder":188},{"sectionNumber":"8.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Catch-up Maintenance","content":"## 8.2 Catch-up Maintenance\n\nKirribilli House and Garden has been well maintained, resulting in a good overall condition. Conservation of the exterior stonework has been carried out within the last five years. A few catch-up maintenance items were noted. Cleaning of the exterior has been added to the maintenance schedule in Section 8.3.","sortOrder":189},{"sectionNumber":"8.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Cyclical Inspection and Maintenance Schedule","content":"## 8.3 Cyclical Inspection and Maintenance Schedule\n\nThe cyclical maintenance plan in Table 8‑2 has been developed to ensure the longevity of the identified significant fabric. Maintenance must adhere to the dos and don’ts provided in Heritage Induction Training Manual (Appendix P), which provides clear direction regarding appropriate and inappropriate repair methods.","sortOrder":190},{"sectionNumber":"References","sectionType":"section","heading":"References","content":"###### References\n\nAECOM. (2019). Kirribilli House - Structural Condition Assessment Report.\n\nAECOM Australia Pty Ltd. (2023). Kirribilli House - Structural Condition Assessment Report.\n\nAustralia ICOMOS. (2013). The Burra Charter and Indigenous Cultural Heritage Management. Australia ICOMOS.\n\nAustralian Heritage Commission. (2002). Ask First: a guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values. Australian Government Publishing Service. http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/commission/books/pubs/ask-first.pdf\n\nAustralian Heritage Council. (2010). Identifying Commonwealth Heritage Values and Establishing a Heritage Register: A guideline for Commonwealth agencies (Issue September). http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/pubs/commonwealth-heritage-values.pdf\n\nCasey & Lowe. (1995). Conservation Study - Kirribilli Foreshore.\n\nCasey & Lowe. (2010). Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment, Kirribilli House, Kirribilli.\n\nClive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd. (1986). Kirribilli House Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy.\n\nCommonwealth of Australia. (2002). Australian Natural Heritage Charter for the conservation of places of natural heritage significance (2nd Ed). The Australian Heritage Commission in association with the Australian Committee for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (ACIUCN). http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/australian-natural-heritage-charter\n\nDepartment of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water. (n.d.). Admiralty House and Lodge, 109 Kirribilli Av, Kirribilli, NSW, Australia. Australian Heritage Database. Retrieved February 22, 2023, from http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place\\_detail;search=town%3DKirribilli%3Bkeyword\\_PD%3Don%3Bkeyword\\_SS%3Don%3Bkeyword\\_PH%3Don%3Blatitude\\_1dir%3DS%3Blongitude\\_1dir%3DE%3Blongitude\\_2dir%3DE%3Blatitude\\_2dir%3DS%3Bin\\_region%3Dpart;plac\n\nDepartment of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water. (2004). Yarralumla and Surrounds, Dunrossil Dr., Yarraluma, ACT, Australia. Australian Heritage Database. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place\\_detail;search=town%3DYarralumla%3Bkeyword\\_PD%3Don%3Bkeyword\\_SS%3Don%3Bkeyword\\_PH%3Don%3Blatitude\\_1dir%3DS%3Blongitude\\_1dir%3DE%3Blongitude\\_2dir%3DE%3Blatitude\\_2dir%3DS%3Bin\\_region%3Dpart;plac\n\nDepartment of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water. (2004). Kirribilli House, 111 Kirribilli Av, Kirribilli, NSW, Australia. Australian Heritage Database. https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place\\_detail;search=place\\_name%3DKirribilli%2520House%3Bkeyword\\_PD%3Don%3Bkeyword\\_SS%3Don%3Bkeyword\\_PH%3Don%3Blatitude\\_1dir%3DS%3Blongitude\\_1dir%3DE%3Blongitude\\_2dir%3DE%3Blatitude\\_2dir%3DS%3Bin\\_region%3Dpart;place\\_id=105451\n\nDepartment of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water. (2004). Kirribilli House Garden & Grounds, 111 Kirribilli Av, Kirribilli, NSW, Australia. Australian Heritage Database. https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place\\_detail;search=place\\_name%3DKirribilli%2520House%3Bkeyword\\_PD%3Don%3Bkeyword\\_SS%3Don%3Bkeyword\\_PH%3Don%3Blatitude\\_1dir%3DS%3Blongitude\\_1dir%3DE%3Blongitude\\_2dir%3DE%3Blatitude\\_2dir%3DS%3Bin\\_region%3Dpart;place\\_id=105589\n\nDepartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2023a). Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Heritage Strategy (2023-2026) Draft.\n\nDepartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2023b). HOW TO: Procurement\\_Address Heritage Considerations.\n\nDesign 5. (2010). Draft Kirribilli House Conservation Management Plan.\n\nGML Heritage Pty Ltd. (2016). Kirribilli House: Operational Heritage Management Plan Volume 1.\n\nGodden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd (GML). (2000). Archaeological Assessment Kirribilli Foreshore Development. Prepared for Clouston.\n\nHeritage NSW. (2011). Government House, Movable Heritage Collection and Gardens. State Heritage Register. https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=5051948\n\nHeritage NSW. (2019). “The Hermitage.” State Heritage Inventory. https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=2711067\n\nHigginbotham, E. (1987). Archaeological Inspection of Alterations to Kirribilli House, Kirribilli, NSW.\n\nKarskens, G. (1987). Kirribilli House Bathing Pool and Early Harbourside pools in Sydney - A brief survey. Research Bulletin, ASHA, Winter. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221473.1966.10617063\n\nLandscape Architects Department of Housing and Construction. (1986). Kirribilli House Grounds Conservation & Managment Plan.\n\nNorth Sydney Council. (2013). North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013.\n\nPhillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd. (1981). Kirribilli House - Master Plan Report.\n\nTanner Architects Pty Ltd. (2010a). Admiralty House HMP.\n\nTanner Architects Pty Ltd. (2010b). Admrialty House HMP.\n\nTaylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd. (2020). Kirribilli House Landscape Management Plan. Unpublished report to Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet","sortOrder":191}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"completionTokens":549},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The document remains focused on heritage management of Kirribilli House and Garden as required by the EPBC Act. The 2025–2030 plan updates the 2016 version with new condition assessments and reflects the 2017 transfer of administrative responsibility from Finance to PM&C, but does not expand beyond the statutory purpose of heritage management planning."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple overlapping statutory frameworks (EPBC Act, NSW Heritage Act, local planning laws)","Detailed cross-referencing to Schedules 7A and 7B of EPBC Regulations with compliance tables","Numerous appendices and referenced documents (some not fully included in excerpt)","Heritage significance criteria requiring assessment against 9 different criteria (A–I)","Multiple stakeholder roles with Memorandum of Understanding arrangements","Conditional logic for works approval depending on heritage impact levels","Integration of natural, Indigenous, and historic heritage values requiring different assessment methods"],"plain_english_summary":"This Heritage Management Plan (2025–2030) directs the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to protect and manage Kirribilli House and Garden’s Commonwealth-heritage values, ensuring conservation, maintenance and assessment of changes under the EPBC Act. It applies to PM&C managers, contractors, Indigenous stakeholders and official users. \n\nThe plan matters because Kirribilli—listed on the Commonwealth Heritage List—is a rare Victorian Rustic Gothic harbourside estate and must be preserved while remaining a functioning Prime Minister’s residence."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/kirribilli-house-and-garden-heritage-management-plan-2025-2030","history":"/api/acts/kirribilli-house-and-garden-heritage-management-plan-2025-2030/history","analysis":"/api/acts/kirribilli-house-and-garden-heritage-management-plan-2025-2030/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/kirribilli-house-and-garden-heritage-management-plan-2025-2030/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/kirribilli-house-and-garden-heritage-management-plan-2025-2030/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/kirribilli-house-and-garden-heritage-management-plan-2025-2030/documents"}}